W3 

■Sr 



UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL 

PEACE THROUGH A 

DISENTANGLING 

ALLIANCE 

By ROBERT STEIN 



Union of the four great democracies of Britain, France, Germany, 
and the United States into an irresistible, beneficent power, to bestow 
peace on the world and to bring liberty, enlightenment, and progress to 
backward and oppressed nations. 

Prepare the way for mediation by offering our alliance to the other 
three great democracies. 

To make America supreme among the nations, through supreme 
service rendered, is the truest Americanism. 

OPINIONS. 

"A definite peace plan at last." — James Geddes, Jr. 

"We have climbed upward in the group organization from the pa- 
triarchal family through clan and tribe to the nation, and logically the 
next step must be the SUPER-NATION. In all human probability your 
proposition is in the direct line of evolution, and is one of the steps 
that men have got to take if they are going to adjust themselves to the 
highly complex environment with which they are now confronted ' ' 
Edward D. Page. 

"I think it my duty to express the deep conviction that any German- 
American who opposes your plan will prove not a friend, but an enemy 
to Germany."— A German- American. 

' 'I am sure that I speak the mind and wish of the people of America 
when I say that the United States is willing to become a partner in any 
feasible association of nations. ' '—President Wilson, May 27, 1916. 



WASHINGTON, D. C. 

JUDD & DETWEILER, Inc., PRINTERS 

1916 






PROPOSED JOINT RESOLUTION 

To Prepare the Way for Mediation in the Present European War and to 
Establish Permanent Peace. 

Whereas permanent peace is not possible without an irresistible power to 
enforce it, which power must necessarily consist of a preponderant and well- 
united league of nations ; and 

Whereas international agreements aiming to maintain the world's peace can- 
not safely be trusted to bear the test of trial in time of stress, unless they are 
primarily designed to promote the self-interests of the contracting parties ; and 

Whereas the true self-interests of Britain, France, Germany, and the United 
States, the most democratic, most enlightened, most progressive great nations, 
comprising by far the larger part of civilization, are most nearly identical and 
therefore most apt to he promoted by union, being at the same time most 
nearly identical with the best interests of all humanity ; and 

Whereas a league of these four nations, though primarily designed for their 
own benefit, would by its overwhelming strength be enabled, and by sheer 
self-interest be compelled, to enforce the world's peace ; and 

Whereas such a league of civilization, cemented by common interests, would 
constitute a solid, reliable, preponderant nucleus, whose magnetism would 
quickly attract the Scandinavian States, the Netherlands, and other free States, 
and thus afford the easiest and surest path to a world federation which .would 
not be in danger of deadlock and disruption ; and 

Whereas the union of the four great democracies into an irresistible power 
would be the surest and quickest means to democratize the world — to bring 
liberty, enlightenment, and progress to oppressed and backward nations ; and 

Whereas the prospect of an alliance for mutual benefit between Britain, 
France, Germany, and the United States would suggest to the belligerents a 
possibility of withdrawing from the conflict with mutual advantage, and would 
thus constitute the best preparation for early and effective mediation ; and 

Whereas the leadership toward perpetual peace would secure to the United 
States the place of honor among the nations for all time to come ; and 

Whereas the Government cannot easily take steps in the matter until it 
knows whether the people are willing to abandon the tradition of "no alli- 
ances" ; and 

Whereas it would be unjust, unpatriotic, and undemocratic to deny to our 
citizens the right to express their wishes on a question of such supreme im- 
portance to them : Therefore be it 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That it is desirable to have a popular vote 
on the following question : 

Shall the United States, after the European war, offer to conclude a de- 
fensive alliance with Britain, France, and Germany? 



(2) 






PETITION IN FAVOR OF THE PRECEDING RESOLUTION 

Washington, D. C, September 11, 191G. 

Hon. William Schlet Howard, 

House of Representatives. 
Sir : The undersigned members of the American Federation of Labor are 
informed that you have been requested to introduce the following resolution : 

Resolved, etc., That it is desirable to have a popular vote on the fol- 
lowing question : 

Shall the United States, after the present European war, offer to 
conclude a defensive alliance with Britain, France, and Germany? 

The only permanent safeguard of peace will be a union of nations, or, as 
President Wilson expressed it, "a feasible association of nations." In what- 
ever form it comes, it must first be submitted to the people. The above reso- 
lution would do this. If there is any means that offers even the slightest 
promise of shortening the horrible conflict now going on, it should not be 
neglected. It seems to us that this resolution could not possibly do any harm, 
and might be productive of great good. We understand that the purpose is 
not to secure Congressional action in the near future, but to start a campaign 
of education. 

The sufferings of war fall mostly on the working people ; hence it is fit that 
the labor organizations should take the lead in the movement for permanent 
peace. It is to their interest that the guardianship of peace be entrusted to 
the four great democracies of Britain, France, Germany, and the United States, 
in which the labor element possesses the greatest power. Moreover, the union 
of these four nations will practically mean the union of the entire white race, 
and will thus put an end to the danger of Asiatic immigration. 



Addis, Mrs. W. W. 
Barrett, Miss C. 
Barrett, Miss E. 
Barringer, Arthur B. 
Blue, Miss Anna 
Braddock, A. A. 
Brown, Walter P. 
Cook, W. II. 
Crouch, Mrs. H. E. 
Davis, Joseph F. 
Dickerson, A. H. 
Duncan, Mrs. A. 
Eckloff, Mrs. L. 
Elliott, T. P. 
Fabrizio, Michael 
Fellinger, F. G. 
Fisk, Mrs. E. P. 
Fleming, H. S. 
Gilliland, W. H. 
Haarer, Victor E. 



Hafle, C. W. 
Harper, James E. 
Henry, Mrs. M. 
Klotz, Mrs. A. 
Knight, A. C. 
Lee, Miss L. M. 
Lowd, P. I. 
McCauley, J. M. 
McCeney, V. 
McKay, E. R. 
McLaughlin, James 
Maddox, A. P. 
Marshall, Geo. S. 
Morrison, G. J. 
Morrow, Mrs. M. 
Murphy, P. S. 
Nalley, John H. 
Nock, N. N. 
Owens, Miss M. 
Peche, Mrs. Lucy 



Reapsomer, Mrs. M. C. 
Rhine, J. H. 
Ridgely, Miss Rosa B. 
Ronev, Miss A. 
Ruff, Wm. R. 
Rush, Miss Ronah 
Scott, Gurnon R. 
Simpson, Thos. C. 
Smith, J. M. 
Stahl, J. B. 
Stormont, Miss M. 
Stormont, W. T. 
Tyrrell, David E. 
Ward, Miss A. 
Williams, Wm. 
Wilson, Wm. L. 
Woodward, Denham 
Yeager, E. O. 



A similar petition, addressed to another Member of Congress, was signed on 
August 24 and 27 by the following members of the Ninth Street Christian 
Church of Washington, D. C. : 



Ashford, M. S. 
Carpenter, F. A. 
Carroll, Mrs. T. A. 
Darnall, J. Carl 
De Groot, H. B. 
Dooley, Geo. A. 
Floyd, J. B. 
Freeman, C. P. 
Gaver, J. W. 
Gravatt, R. H. 
Heatwole, Mrs. O. W. 
Hostetler, T. A. 



Kent, James G. 
Kidwell, Geo. W. 
Kitchin, C. A. 
Kulp, E. C. 
Llewellyn, T. J. 
Lomax, E. L. 
McCurdy, Wm. C. 
McCurdy, W. S. 
Morrison, F. 
Myers, Geo. L. 
Nikirk, H. H. 
Phillips, C. D. 

(3) 



Pirtle, T. R. 
Putnam, O. T. 
Richards, Wm. H. 
Saunders, G. B. 
Sherier, A. W. 
Shook, D. S. 
Sparks, E. M. 
Stephenson, E. T. 
Stephenson, Mrs. E. 
Stephenson, J. T. 
Trice, W. H. 
Warfleld, Ernest 



PEACE THROUGH A DISENTANGLING ALLIANCE. 
By Robert Stein. 

Shall we remain idle spectators of the greatest horror in 
history, when we have the power to stop it? 

The world looks to the United States for mediation. The 
President offered mediation once, and promised to offer it 
again at the opportune moment. Has not that moment ar- 
rived? By this time, surely, the combatants must be in a 
mood to listen to a proposal to extricate them from the dead- 
locked agony which threatens to continue indefinitely. 
Mediation would come in the nick of time. 

Merely to inquire whether mediation would be acceptable 
were almost an idle formality. Neither party can easily stop 
fighting if by so doing it would leave its future in uncer- 
tainty. If we are sincere in our professed desire to establish 
permanent peace, we must present to the combatants a plan 
which will make it safe for them to stop fighting. 

The Turning-point of History. 

The offer of a defensive alliance of the United States with 
Britain, France, and Germany would accomplish two things: 
(1) Stop the war, (2) Make peace permanent. 

(1) Stop the War. 

The proposed offer, virtually amounting to an offer of 
Anglo-American reunion, would promptly lead to an under- 
standing between Britain and Germany. 

(4) 



Perpetual Security of the British Empire. 

In the words of her statesmen, Britain is "fighting for life," 
in the belief that the defeat of her allies would leave her at 
the mercy of Germany. Nothing but the conviction of this 
seemingly inexorable necessity could have moved Britain to 
undertake the gruesome and increasingly hopeless task of 
crushing her own Mother, the land of universities, the land 
without illiterates. If Britain and her Gigantic Daughter 
were reunited, if the restored English-speaking nation pos- 
sessed the assurance that all its members were ready to defend 
their common patrimony, as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, 
and South Africa are today defending the British empire, 
Britain would no longer feel that she was fighting for life, 
knowing that the power of united Anglo-Saxondom would 
always be invincible. 

Germany Must Be Included. 

Thus as soon as the virtual offer of Anglo-American re- 
union is made, as soon as Britain is thus invited by us to 
accept the guarantee of perpetual security, she will no longer 
have any motive to continue the fight, but every motive to 
make peace on terms acceptable to Germany, in order to 
fulfill the condition accompanying the guarantee. Anglo- 
American reunion is evidently impossible without the con- 
sent of the German- Americans, which will not be given un- 
less Germany be included. When this is accomplished, 
Britain will no longer have any motive to oppose her 
Mother's expansion, but, on the contrary, every motive to 
aid her in acquiring any lands not owned by Britain herself. 

Germany is Willing. 

The recently published interview of Mr. S. S. Mcdure with 
Dr. Paul Rohrbach and other prominent Germans indicates 



6 

that this solution will be welcomed in Germany. It will be 
remembered that the late Admiral Breusing, of the German 
navy, expressed the same views a few months before the war. 
At that time, with Lord Haldane's visit to Berlin fresh in 
men's minds, it seemed not merely probable, but certain, that 
the differences between Britain and Germany were approach- 
ing an early settlement, which might before long have 
ripened into an alliance. Germany had expressed her willing- 
ness to agree to a limitation of naval armaments, while Mr. 
Asquith had declared that Britain, owning nearly one-fourth 
of the earth's surface, had enough land and did not intend 
to acquire more, but was willing to leave the control of the 
remaining backward lands to Germany. 

"From many of the leading men in Berlin," says Mr. 
McClure, "I have sought an explanation of the diplomatic 
negotiations of the fateful week that preceded the war. I 
am always answered that the war was equally unexpected and 
unwanted in Germany and England. That the mobilization 
of Russia was the determining factor is the conviction of 
those best informed and most responsible for Germany's 
acts. 

" 'What is the ideal solution of the world situation, and 
how can world peace be best secured?' 

"The answer to these two questions is surprisingly unani- 
mous: An alliance between the United States, England, and 
Germany, not as against the world, nor in any way minimiz- 
ing the status and rights of the allies of these nations. 

"Such an alliance would settle the questions of the freedom 
of the seas, would insure absolute security for trade and 
against war on the Atlantic and Pacific, and, as affirmed by 
many of the ablest and most influential men I have met, 
would secure the peace of the world for centuries. 

"Is such a plan feasible? England and Germany had 
very nearly concluded negotiations that would have removed 
all causes of friction and insured peace." 



German Cheers for Germanic Union. 

The same ideas are put forward in an editorial in the New 
York Evening Mail of June 3, 1916, under the title of 
"Anglo-Saxons." 

"One striking incident stands forth in the story which 
S. S. McClure Thursday night told of his experiences on the 
continent. It was not the marvelous tales of German effi- 
ciency in economic organization, nor the strange picture of 
fighting fronts where no living thing was visible. The 
striking sketch which Mr. McClure drew was of a dinner 
with the general and staff of the Twelfth army on the Rus- 
sian front. The American arose and proposed a toast to an 
alliance of England, Germany, and the United States in the 
work of carrying forward civilization and peace. The Ger- 
man staff answered the toast with cheers. 

In 1902, when Cecil Rhodes' will was read, it was found 
to contain provision for liberal scholarships for Americans 
and Germans at Oxford. These are the words in which he 
explained his gift: 

'The object is that an understanding between the three 
great powers will render war impossible, and educational re- 
lations make the strongest tie.' 

It does the heart good to learn that amid all the horrors 
and hates of war the ideal of an Anglo-Saxon [this term is 
evidently used in the sense of "Germanic"] leadership of 
the world still lives. Its roots are deeper than the alliances 
and intrigues that fester around the outbreak of this war. 
That sentiment of a common destiny of co-operation, not 
of civil strife, between these three nations, is in the blood. 

Those who work to foment hate between England and 
Germany work against the Anglo-Saxon idea. The world 
needs both of them in full undiminished strength and sov- 
ereignty. British traditionalism and German rationalism 
are the two qualities which, if combined with the force and 
energy of the new American world power, will furnish the 



8 

elements and set the pace for world progress. Enough of 
this talk of England destroying Germany or Germany de- 
stroying England. Either event would mean the same calam- 
ity as for one of them to destroy the United States. 

In their hearts what do Germany and England want? 
Security. What does the United States most want today? 
Security. Can any man name a way so certain to reach 
this goal as by the realization of an Anglo-Saxon understand- 
ing? Or is there any other way so certain, so easy of attain- 
ment, for assuring the peace and progress of the world? It is 
an alliance for which our instincts cry out, an alliance which 
can be widened to embrace more extensive forms of inter- 
nationalism. 

The alternative? Germany seeks security. She finds it 
with us or elsewhere. If we shut her out from England and 
America in the west, she will turn to alien strangers in the 
east. No one who knows politics doubts that Germany can 
in the future achieve an alliance with Russia and Japan, if 
she will pay the price. Nor would the price come out of 
Germany's pocket. It would be paid from the coffers of 
civilization ; the price would be the occidental abandonment 
of Asia. 

No responsible thinking person wants to face such an 
eventuality. Germany belongs where she seeks to be: with 
her brothers in the west." 

Incredible as it may seem, some German-American papers 
sneered at this editorial as pro-British, not noticing the fact 
that it is essentially pro-German. They seem to have been 
misled by the unfortunate use of the term "Anglo-Saxon." 

France Must Be Included. 

An alliance between Britain and Germany is impossible 
unless France be included. When Britain, France, and the 
United States on the one hand, and Britain, Germany, and 
the United States on the other, are ready for the alliance, 
the pressure for mutual concessions between France and 



9 

Germany will become irresistible. The ink-begotten, ink- 
fed "hereditary enmity," unscribbled, unprattled, unknown 
150 years ago, will yield to compromise, just as the much 
older "hereditary enmity" between Britain and France did 
in 1904. 

Bernard Shaw Pleads for a Quadruple Alliance. 

A dispatch to the New York Times dated London, Novem- 
ber 24, 1915, says: "A league of western civilization as a 
preventive against future war was the suggestion thrown out 
by George Bernard Shaw in an address delivered last night. 
He pictured a combination of white civilization from the 
Rockies to the Carpathians, organized on a democratic basis. 
In this league he wished to see America, France, England, 
and Germany, who would be joined for their own protec- 
tion by Belgium and the Scandinavian states. England was 
showing Germany, he said, that she had better be England's 
friend than her enemy. 

'I do not believe/ he said, 'that there can be any peace in 
the world until there is peace between England, France, and 
Germany.' " 

Germany is also trying to show England that she had 
better be Germany's friend than her enemy. Which of the 
two countries needs the lesson more? And can't either of 
them think of a less costly method of teaching? 

England Favors a Peace Union. 

A dispatch dated New York, May 12, 1916, says: "Theo- 
dore Marburg, of Baltimore, formerly United States Minister 
to Belgium, at a dinner given by him here tonight to mem- 
bers of the League to Enforce Peace, told of an interview 
he had with Sir Edward Grey, in which the British foreign 
minister said that he was wholly in favor of the plan of the 
League to Enforce Peace. 'I found other leading men in 



10 

England quite in sympathy with President Wilson'? aspira- 
tion for some sort of joint guarantee of peace on the part 
of the great nations. I found it was generally felt that the 
United States, which is the greatest example of a successful 
league of States, might properly take the initiative in this 
movement. 

No responsible body of opinion in England desires the dis- 
memberment of Germany. What the allies demand is that 
the German attitude should so change from the inside that 
the rest of the world can live with her comfortably. If a 
change does come in the German point of view, we can live 
and work with one of the most helpful and inspiriting coun- 
tries of the world. And it is believed that, in such an event, 
Germany could be counted upon to join a league of nations 
organized for justice, and that out of justice would come 
peace.' " 

A Change of Heart All Around. 

A few comments on the preceding remarks may not be 
amiss. No doubt Germany, like all other nations, needs a 
change of heart in many respects. The question is which 
side should make the start — Germany or her prospective 
partners. To live comfortably with Germany will be the 
easiest thing in the world, if her neighbors will but recognize 
the fact that, as the most highly educated nation, making 
the best use of her land, taking the best care of her people, 
she is entitled to the permanent enjoyment of her present 
rank as one of the leading powers. England, owning an 
empire more than four times the size of the United States, 
has enough land; in fact Mr. Asquith said that she has no 
desire to acquire more. Russia, nearly three times the sizte 
of the United States, has enough land; Tsar Nicholas I said 
so long ago. France, with a colonial domain one-and-a- 
half times the size of the United States, has enough land to 
assure her continuance as a great power. Germany, having 
hardly any colonies fit for white settlement, must inevitably 



11 

decline from her rank as a great power, unless she acquires 
a wider sphere of influence. If there are in the Old World 
any backward countries that need the uplifting influence 
of a strong, vigorous, civilized nation, nothing can be plainer 
than that they should be conceded to Germany as her sphere 
of influence. If the German government takes better care 
of its people than any other government, as is universally 
admitted, what better luck could befall any backward, 
neglected, ill-treated people than to come under the influence 
of such a government? Do this justice, and "out of justice 
will come peace." Admit Germany's claim to an adequate 
sphere of influence to insure her permanent rank as a great 
power, and she will be the most comfortable neighbor to live 
with. To understand what the denial of that claim means to 
her, all you have to do is to imagine yourself in her place 
and picture to yourself what your feelings would be. Would 
you not feel compelled to remain armed to the teeth in order 
to escape vassalage? Could you adopt any other policy than 
the one which you call militarism ? 

There is ample evidence to show that this situation is well 
understood by the leading statesmen in Britain, and that 
they would gladly admit Germany's claim, were they not 
afraid of being overshadowed by her. That fear would be 
dispelled by Anglo-American reunion. If this were offered, 
Britain would at once give Germany a free hand. 

Albert Johnson's Work. 

On August 30, 1913, nearly a year before the war, Hon. 
Albert Johnson of Washington advocated the same Quad- 
ruple Alliance. 

"To attempt to unite all the white nations at once would 
needlessly complicate a task which will prove sadly compli- 
cated even in its simplest form. The initial combination 
must be just large enough to be predominant, but not larger 
than necessary, lest it lose its cohesion and become impotent 



12 

through the internal strains peculiar to every political struc- 
ture before it gets into the habit of acting as a unit. A trust 
of civilization, consisting of Britain, France, Germany, and 
the United States, would suffice to break the deadlock which 
paralyzes Europe and to replace it by an effective concert 
based on common interests, and magnetic enough to secure 
the virtual union of the entire white race in the near future. 
It would at once constitute that international executive power 
which is the only means to insure universal peace, the early 
cessation of the growth of armaments, and their gradual 
reduction till they shall be just sufficient to keep the executive 
power securely predominant. 

We poke fun at the people who say mafiana. Let us not 
say it ourselves. A stitch in time saves nine. 

We can increase our navy fivefold without the expenditure 
of a cent, by simply annexing the British, German and 
French navies. We can have an army of two millions on 
a peace footing and an army of eight millions on a war foot- 
ing at no cost to ourselves, simply by making the German, 
French, and British armies coalesce with our own. 

If you will take the trouble of looking into the matter you 
will find that the defensive union of the four most advanced 
nations is entirely feasible. It is simply a matter of a few 
compromises for the advantage of everyone concerned, com- 
promises which have already won the approval of the best 
thinkers in Britain, France, and Germany. Everything de- 
pends on the first step, and that step we can take. 

Thousands of people all over the globe are studying night 
and day how to solve the problem of universal peace. Here 
is a way — the surest way — probably the only way; at any 
rate the way in which all existing peace has been brought 
about: By the consolidation of the existing areas of internal 
peace, a consolidation which in the past was accomplished 
for the most part by conquest, in a few cases by voluntary 
union under external pressure. One more consolidation and 
the area of internal peace will become worldwide. Any one 



13 

can see that the four great powder-making nations, the four 
great gun-making, machine-using, coal-mining, shipbuild- 
ing, money-owning, technically trained nations, representing 
probably nine-tenths of the world's industry, would together 
constitute such an overwhelming power as to make war hence- 
forth impossible. It would mean the almost immediate ar- 
rest of armaments and their gradual reduction to a mere frac- 
tion of their present size. Not only would our insurance 
policy cost us nothing, but it would greatly reduce our pres- 
ent expenditure." 

First Kill, Then Resurrect. 

Our offer of an alliance would be an event of first magni- 
tude, and make a worldwide impression. When the public 
in Britain, France, and Germany are thus informed that 
they can have perpetual peace and perpetual supremacy over 
the globe, on condition that they become allies, they will not 
commit the absurdity of insisting that they must first crush 
their future allies in order afterward to resurrect them and 
ask them to be their friends. 

Birds of a Feather. 

To discuss the conditions of peace would be premature. 
Two conditions, however, are so essential to the permanence 
of peace that the opportunity of calling attention to them 
must not be neglected. 

To restore such an artificial political structure, such an 
apple of discord, as the kingdom of Belgium, merely to keep 
up the name, would be a monumental absurdity. If King 
Albert must have a kingdom, let him be king of Poland, with 
three times as many subjects as he had before. The French- 
speaking Belgians wish to be French; let them be French. 
They cut loose from Holland in 1830 for the express purpose 
of joining France, and would have done so but for British 



14 

opposition. The Dutch-speaking Belgians wish to be Dutch ; 
let them be Dutch. According to the "Vlaamsche Volks- 
raad," their slogan is "Weg med Belgenland ! Leve de Scheid- 
ing!" (Away with Belgium! Cheers for separation!) If 
Flemish Belgium, with the Belgian Congo, be allowed to com- 
bine with Holland into a Greater Netherlands, united with 
Germany in a customs union, Britain will not feel that a 
pistol is pointed at her heart from Antwerp. Germany, on 
the other hand, can calmly wait till Greater Netherlands, as 
genuinely German as Germany herself, grows tired of her 
separation from the rest of Germandom, and till Britain, 
under the sedative influence of the Quadruple Alliance and 
of Anglo-American reunion, recovers from her nervous 
alarms at Germany's supposed designs, and returns to her 
millennial affection for the "Older England." This, there- 
fore, is an arrangement to which both parties can safely 
agree. Render unto France the things that are French, and 
unto Holland the things that are Dutch. 

The restoration of the old boundaries in the Balkans would 
be another absurdity. Europe has been sitting on a volcano 
for a century because the various fragments of each Balkan 
nationality were by force prevented from uniting. The vol- 
cano is now extinct ; why should it be rekindled ? The world 
war arose from the efforts of the five fragments of the Serbian 
nation to attain their union. They have now attained it; 
let them keep it. All the Serbian-speaking lands have been 
absorbed by Austria-Hungary. As an autonomous kingdom 
within that Monarchy, Greater Serbia, under Prince Mirko 
of Montenegro, the pet of Vienna, would be as content as 
Pennsylvania is within the United States, and would not 
clamor for independence any more than Pennsylvania does. 
Smaller Serbia was a firebrand; Greater Serbia will be a 
bulwark of peace. Whoever insists on the restoration of the 
kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro, with their old un- 
natural boundaries and their fictitious independence, proves 
that he is a doctrinaire who cares more for a name than for 
the people who bear that name. 



15 

The Roumanian nation, too, might find its long-sought 
national unity as an autonomous state within the future 
Austro-Hungarian confederation King Ferdinand becoming 
king of Dacia (Hungary-Roumania). 

Progress has been essentially a process of concentration, the 
change from indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to definite, 
coherent heterogeneity, the consolidation of many small 
political units, with fictitious home rule, into a few large 
ones, enjoying true home rule. The day of small unconfed- 
erated nationalities, like the day of the hand loom, is past. 

No Return to Monarchy. 

Anglo-American reunion does not mean the resumption 
of allegiance to a king. It simply means a federation of the 
English-speaking nations for common defense, each member 
being left as independent in its internal affairs as before. 
We should not be called upon to share in the administration 
of Britain's colonies any more than Canada is called upon 
today. Since Canada and the United States together number 
more than twice as many inhabitants as the rest of the Eng- 
lish-speaking countries, it is evident that the center of the 
Anglo-Saxon (or rather Celtanglian) Federation, the meet- 
ing-place of the Celtanglian Congress or Parliament, would 
have to be on the Western Hemisphere. 

Ireland the Peer of England and America. 

As Newfoundland would no doubt for this purpose be in- 
cluded with Canada, the Celtanglian Federation would at 
present consist of six self-governing nations : the United King- 
dom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, 
and South Africa. However, the Federation can hardly come 
into existence, nor work smoothly, unless provision be made 
for a seventh member, of equal rank with the others, to wit, 
Ireland. It is not likely that the Irish-Americans will con- 



16 

sent to a federation which would leave Ireland a mere ap- 
pendage to Britain. On the contrary, if Ireland be admitted 
as the peer of the other six members, having no closer con- 
nection with Britain than with the United States, she will 
act as a most efficient cement of the whole structure, because 
the 16 million people of Irish blood in the United States and 
the British colonies would feel that their political union with 
the land of their fathers depended on its membership in the 
Celtanglian Federation. A hexarchy would suffer from 
chronic indigestion ; a heptarchy could digest the earth. And 
yet it would be nothing else than Greater Britain. 

(2) Make Peace Permanent. 

The union of the four freest, strongest, most enlightened 
and progressive nations would at once insure universal 
peace. 

Force is the Guarantee of Peace. 

All the peace that ever existed within any nation is com- 
pulsory; it would not last five minutes were it not for the 
presence of the executive power with its well-filled store of 
powder and ball. When the executive power of any nation 
is weak, there is constant danger of internal war. Similarly, 
permanent international peace is not possible without a 
strong, firmly-knit International Executive Power. The 
peace which till lately was well-nigh universal was the result 
of the progressive, forcible consolidation of many small 
nations into a few great nations. It was broken because 
each one of these great nations, seeing its future insecure, 
had to take advantage of every chance to make it secure, 
not only by strengthening its armament to the utmost, but 
also by checking the growth of its neighbors, which of course 
tended to make its neighbors' future more insecure and sub- 
jected them to the constant temptation to thwart the sup- 
posed conspiracy by armed force, while yet a chance 



17 

remained. The conclusion is evident. Let there be a final 
consolidation into a group so large as not to admit of a rival 
combination; let the consolidated nations thus assure their 
own future, making it advantageous for them to aid instead 
of checking one another, and enabling them to decide the 
claims of the unconsolidated nations on the sole ground of 
the best interest of humanity — and peace will be perpetual. 

Not Too Many Cooks. 

If the International Executive Power is not to become a 
powerless power through its own complexity and internal 
friction, it must not include more nations than will suffice 
to make it irresistible. The greater the number of partici- 
pants, the greater will be the difficulty of reconciling their 
interests; the feebler will be the coherence; the greater the 
danger of rupture in time of stress. 

Peace with Righteousness. 

In order to have the best assurance that this Power will 
always be on the side of justice and progress, it must be 
composed of those governments that are responsible to the 
most enlightened, most humane constituencies, to whom the 
destinies of humanity may most safely be entrusted. There 
was peace within the Mongol empire in the 13th century, 
but it was a most unrighteous peace, making civilized people 
the helpless prey of barbarians. 

Union of the Elite. 

In order that the peace enforced by the Executive Power 
shall be eugenic, that is to say, tending to promote the 
spread of the superior human elements, and thus to fulfill 
the main condition of the increase of human happiness, the 
nations entering the combination, and made omnipotent 
2v 



18 

through union, must be the elite of humanity, so that, in 
seeking their own advantage, they shall best promote the 
interests of the race. The elite should be elite enough to 
hang together. Too often has the disunion of the superior 
elements subjected them to the inferior, which enjoyed 
union through their anti-eugenic capacity for submitting 
to despotism. A house divided against itself cannot stand, 
even though it be made of the finest material. 

The Four-cornered House of Peace. 

To state the above conditions is to name the only four 
nations that can fulfill them: Britain, France, Germany, 
and the United States. Evidently the alliance of these four 
great creditor nations would be strong enough to impose 
peace on the globe, and would be compelled by sheer regard 
for its financial interests to do so, when the four nations 
no longer try to check one another. It is highly fortunate 
that two of them, Britain and France, are already allied. 
This leaves only the reconciliation and alliance of Britain 
and Germany and of France and Germany to be accom- 
plished. We can accomplish it by offering our alliance to 
all three. 

A Growing Creed. 

A predominant International Executive Power consisting 
of Britain, France, Germany, and the United States was 
advocated by Mr. Carnegie in his letter to the Boston Peace 
Congress, dated September 27, 1904. The same idea was 
advanced by Colonel Roosevelt in his Norway speech on 
May 5, 1910 ; by Admiral Wainwright in his address before 
the American Society for Judicial Settlement of Inter- 
national Disputes, December 21, 1912 ; and by Senator 
Lodge in his Schenectady speech of June 9, 1915. 

"Nations must unite," says Senator Lodge, "as men unite, 
to preserve peace and order. The great nations must be so 



19 

united as to be able to say to any single country, 'You must 
not go to war,' and they can only say that effectively when 
the country desiring war knows that the force which the 
united nations place behind peace is irresistible." 

The program of the Navy League says that permanent 
peace is possible only through "the concentration of the pre- 
ponderant military strength into the hands of the most 
pacific communities." 

One of the most emphatic important utterances on this 
subject is that of Prof. Talcott Williams, Director of the 
Columbia University School of Journalism, in an address 
before the Panamerican Congress at Washington. 

"A United States, armed and ready to act on new respon- 
sibilities and to play its part in the world's peace, can turn 
the world toward some agreement for the joint enforcement 
of international law } neutralization, and arbitration. An 
unarmed United States, not ready to discharge its duty to 
the peace of humanity, will be negligible in the new organi- 
zation of Europe, or become its prey. With the armed force 
of European civilization, and one might add Asiatic, today 
divided into two opposing camps and commands, neither as 
yet visibly the victor, the question as to how an international 
tribunal can enforce its jurisdiction really turns in this 
situation on whether the United States, by arming, awaken- 
ing to its duty, and changing its past policy, will become 
as efficient an instrument in the world's peace as does the 
good citizen when the sheriff calls." 

"Until the greater countries, or a vigorous majority of the 
greater countries, agree to use force ; neither international 
tribunals nor peace will be more than a dream, a vision, a 
kindly hope, a friendly desire, to be broken at any moment 
by brute force. Only a world force can bring world peace." 

And the only way to create a reliable world force is to 
create it primarily not for the purpose of enforcing the 
world's peace, but for the members' own benefit; and to 
begin with those nations whose participation is absolutely 



20 

indispensable. Call in as many cooks as you must have, but 
no more. 

The Rule of Benevolent Force. 

In days of old, when knights were bold, and barons held 
their sway, every man went armed, knowing that, in the 
absence of a strong executive power, he might at any 
moment be attacked. Today, when the executive power is 
strong and vigilant, most men go unarmed, knowing that 
the chance of being attacked is too remote to justify the 
trouble of carrying arms. So long as we have no Inter- 
national Executive Power, every nation feels compelled to 
remain armed, not knowing how soon it may be attacked. 
When the smaller nations discover that the Quadruple 
Alliance means business, that it is a real International 
Executive Power, which will neither allow them to attack 
nor to be attacked, when they have by experience become 
convinced that they have nothing to fear from it so long 
as they remain at peace, they will quickly grow tired of 
their costly, useless armaments and will reduce or even 
abolish them. Thereupon the Quadruple Alliance could 
reduce itg own armaments and still remain sufficiently pre- 
dominant to insure the world's peace. It is even possible 
that the International Police might forbid the carrying of 
arms by individual nations, just as the municipal police 
forbids the carrying of arms by individuals, without special 
license. It has been estimated that one-tenth of the present 
armaments of the four leading nations would suffice to keep 
the globe at peace if that one-tenth were under single control 
and no rival armament in existence. 

How to Crush Militarism. 

That is the way to crush militarism — by abolishing the 
conditions which make it a necessity. So long as we have 
nearly a dozen big sticks, they are bound to grow bigger and 



21 

bigger; when we have only one big stick, it will quickly 
grow smaller. So long as we have an incoherent multiplic- 
ity of nations, they will have no choice but to arrange them- 
selves in rival groups, so balanced in strength as to constitute 
a practical deadlock, each nation being meanwhile compelled 
to remain armed to the teeth in order to face the ubiquitous 
uncertainty and to make its alliance as valuable as possible. 
That is militarism — the "balance of power," in other words, 
the lack of a Preponderant Power. 

Banish the Uncertainty. 

Break the balance of power; create the conditions which 
will enable the strongest nations to unite into an efficient 
concert, with no possible rival, a preponderant, irresistible, 
firmly coherent power, dispensing the highest kind of jus- 
tice — and the uncertainty will be at an end; the temptation 
for the smaller nations to obtain advantages by force of arms 
will vanish. All the minor armaments will become useless 
and disappear, and then there will be no motive for an 
increase of the one remaining great armament, but every 
motive for its reduction. Pennsylvania and New York are 
not trying to rival each other in armaments. When time 
and the practice of co-operation shall have welded Britain, 
France, Germany, and the United States into a unit with a 
single soul, their separate armaments will insensibly coalesce 
into one, and their rivalry will cease. 

Beware of Prenatal Asphyxia. 

Even though the four governments mentioned are the 
most reasonable, most enlightened, best intentioned, and 
their real interests are least conflicting, nothing less than 
supreme wisdom and devotion will be needed to weld them 
together into an efficient, securely coherent International 
Executive Power. It were criminal folly to defeat the effort 
in advance, to stifle the infant before birth, by insisting that 



22 

less reasonable, less enlightened, less well-intentioned gov- 
ernments, with sharply conflicting interests, must be invited 
to take part in the initial combination. When you have 
barely enough cement, you cannot afford to mix clay with it 

The Suicide of Logic. 

When a man advocates an International Executive Power 
on the ground that nothing but force will assure peace, and 
then insists that this Power must represent all nations, free 
and unfree, advanced and backward, enlightened and be- 
nighted, educated and illiterate, because otherwise it would 
embody the rule of force, he says yes and no to the same 
proposition at the same time. He takes a step forward, then 
steps back the same distance, and crows with joy to think 
how progressive he is, because he took two steps. It takes 
a genuine doctrinaire to invoke the name of force and the 
name of equality in the same breath. When the Quadruple 
Alliance is in assured working order as an International 
Executive Power, it will be time to consider the question of 
its enlargement through the admission of other self-govern- 
ing, enlightened nations. We want a Power, not a Pande- 
monium; a combination of forces, not a deadlock, like the 
late lamented "concert of the powers." A dozen oars will 
not move a boat if six pull forward and six backward. 

The Entering Wedge. 

Make sure of the beginning, if you wish to reach the end. 
The way to split a log is to use an "entering wedge." The 
Romans gradually extended the privilege of Roman citizen- 
ship till it finally was granted to all the inhabitants of the 
empire; if they had made it a rule to grant it to every 
province before it was accustomed to Roman rule, there would 
have been no Roman empire, no Pax Romana. 



23 



The Cement Will Set 

The United States is a standing proof of the practicability 
of an Anglo-Franco-German-American alliance. Our area 
is equal to that of Europe, and our population, now 100 
millions, will soon be 263 millions, the present aggregate 
population of the proposed combination; yet we feel abso- 
lutely sure that our nation will remain as firmly united then 
as now. Were the Quadruple Alliance once started, the 
daily enjoyment of its omnipotence would soon give it the 
permanence of a law of nature. "It is only the first step 
that costs," says the French proverb. "Put Germany in the 
saddle ; she will ride all right," said Bismarck to the gloomy 
prophets who predicted that Germany, even if once patched 
together, would fall to pieces again. 

"Habit is an iron shirt," says the German proverb. Let 
the wisest nations for once be wise and energetic enough to 
cast off the iron shirt of disunion, and they will soon be 
wearing the iron shirt of union. 

The Paramount Interest. 

Just as eugenics is the paramount condition of progress, 
so the union of the elite is the paramount condition of 
eugenics. Little will it profit to find out what human types 
have the best claim to survive, if meantime through their 
cursed disunion they lose the power to enforce their claim. 
Today the progressive elements, by simply uniting, can 
become omnipotent, for their own and humanity's greatest 
advantage. If they throw away the opportunity, the forces 
of reaction may grasp it and initiate an era of anti-eugenics, 
an era of stagnant misery. 

"Ill fared it then with Roderick Dhu 
That on the field his targe he threw." 

Eighteen hundred years ago, Tacitus, the Roman his- 



24 

torian, speaking of the Britons, expressed his astonishment 
at the strange perversity of human nature which leads 
nations to continue their quarrels, even when the common 
enemy is at the door : 

"Nee aliud adversus validissimas gentes pro nobis utilius 
quam quod in commune non consulunt. Rarus duabus 
tribusve civitatibus ad propulsandum commune periculum 
conventus; ita, dum singuli pugnant, universi vincuntur." 

(In our contests with the most valiant nations nothing is 
more useful to us than the fact that they do not act together. 
Only in rare cases do two or three nations combine to ward 
off the common danger; and thus, as they fight each by 
itself, they are conquered one by one. ) 

The same warning is daily repeated in the press of Britain, 
France, Germany, and the United States. When will it be 
heeded? 

On reading the story of the wars between Athens and 
Sparta, which led to the ruin of both, one instinctively 
exclaims: "The unspeakable fools! Why hadn't they sense 
enough to combine and rule the earth?" 

Why haven't we sense enough to do it now? 

Se If -de brutalization. 

All past consolidations of small nations into large nations 
were made for selfish purposes, mostly for the aggrandize- 
ment of brutal conquerors. In the face of passing events, 
it would be a burlesque to assert that the day of selfishness 
in international relations is past. Ten thousand cannon 
are telling us that international agreements to maintain the 
world's peace cannot be safely trusted to bear the test of 
trial in time of stress, unless they are primarily designed to 
promote the self-interests of the contracting parties. Some 
people call this a shocking doctrine. The remark is bitterly 
true. It is shocking to find humanity so little raised above 
the brute. But nothing is to be gained by ignoring that 



25 

fact, and not much more is to be gained by lamenting or 
denouncing it. The wise, manly thing to do is to take 
advantage of it, just as you take advantage of any other 
force of nature. Use the stumbling-block as a stepping- 
stone. Make brutality turn the handle of the very machine 
which shall grind and sift the brute out of man. Induce 
the four leading nations to conclude an alliance for their 
own selfish interests, and they will be compelled by their 
very selfishness to render to humanity the service of estab- 
lishing that permanent peace which is needed to give freer 
play to the unselfish instincts and to limit the scope of the 
selfish instincts. 

Fill Our Arsenals. 

If this policy were adopted, the immediate stoppage of the 
war or an immediate embargo on exports of munitions need 
not throw a single workman out of employment. The am- 
munition which we now manufacture for foreigners would 
be manufactured for ourselves. The value of our alliance 
will be quoted in the market in accordance with the state of 
our arsenals. By keeping all our ammunition at home, we 
shall greatly add to the eloquence of our plea for peace. 

Congressman Gardner on July 29 declared in the House 
of Representatives that the British had used in one day for 
the Somme advance more field artillery ammunition than 
the entire supply of the United States. At the present rate 
of appropriations for field artillery ammunition, he said, it 
would require eleven or twelve years to acquire sufficient 
ammunition to supply the needs of the army for the early 
months of a possible war. This means, of course, that in 
case of war with a great power we should be defenseless until 
we had accumulated sufficient ammunition, and the ques- 
tion at once arises whether the enemy would give us time 
to do that. The grotesque thing is that we are probably 
manufacturing enough ammunition in a month to last us 
for the first three months of a possible war, but all this goes 



26 

abroad. If we are really in earnest about preparedness, the 
first common-sense measure would be an embargo on exports 
of ammunition, coupled with a proviso that the United States 
government will assume the remainder of the pending con- 
tracts. 

That kind of preparedness ought to commend itself to the 
labor unions. One reason why these unions oppose military 
preparation is the fear that a large standing army, when 
once at the disposal of the government, would be used not 
only for foreign war but also for repressing popular move- 
ments. Evidently the accumulation of ammunition would 
have no such effect, while the manufacture of that ammuni- 
tion would keep large bodies of workmen employed at 
remunerative wages. 

So long as we keep up the policy of isolation, we have 
the technical right to sell ammunition to any one able to 
buy it, and according to the letter of neutrality it is none 
of our business to inquire whether both sides are able to buy. 
But if we decide to abandon the tradition of no alliances, 
it would be a flagrant piec of effrontery to invite Germany 
to be our ally while we continue to furnish ammunition to 
her enemies. 

This is 1916, Not 1796. 

When an alliance with our three parent nations is the 
only avenue to permanent peace and to the conservation of 
our paramount interest, what shall we say of the man who at- 
one and the same time clamors for peace and against "en- 
tangling alliances?" He cuts off his nose to spite his face. 
He pins to his coat the badge of insincerity. He says, "We 
must swim, but we must not go into the water." A doctrine 
has neither meaning nor value except what it derives from 
the purpose on which it is based. The purpose of Washing- 
ton's warning against entangling alliances in 1796 was to 
avoid war. So long as the doctrine served that purpose, it 
was good. When it defeats that purpose, it becomes bad. 



27 

No one who has studied the character of Washington can 
doubt that, if he were alive today, he would be the foremost 
advocate of our participation in the Quadruple Alliance. 
The grown man would look ridiculous in the go-cart which 
afforded safety to his baby steps. 

The Letter That Killeth. 

By offering reunion to Britain, on condition that France 
and Germany be included, we are sure of banishing war not 
only from our own country, but from the globe. If we 
deny to our harassed brothers the boon of that initiative 
which we can give so easily; if we refuse to organize the 
most progressive elements of mankind, our own kindred and 
natural friends, into an International Executive Power to 
control the world's destinies for the world's greatest good; 
if we worship the letter which killeth, while we blaspheme 
the spirit which giveth life — we are by no means sure of a 
better chance of remaining at peace; on the contrary, our 
very lack of allies, the very lack of organization among our 
kindred, may before long expose us to a horrible war. To 
cling to our traditional aloofness simply because it is the 
tradition, would be to shirk our manifest duty. To pro- 
claim our yearning for peace, and then, for the sake of a 
"doctrine," refuse to create the agency which alone can 
establish peace, would be to notify the world that we do not 
mean what we say. 

We cannot cut loose from our past. We are simply Euro- 
peans, born or naturalized in America. Blood is thicker 
than geography. My brother remains my brother, even 
when he moves to the antipodes; the stranger remains a 
stranger, even though he lives next door. 

A Disentangling Alliance. 

An alliance with one nation would indeed be entangling. 
An alliance with the three strongest nations, our own near- 



28 

est kin and natural friends, would not be entangling, but 
disentangling. It would be our strongest conceivable arma- 
ment, rendering us absolutely secure against attack. To 
neglect that armament would be to throw away our best 
chance of safety. 

A Decaying Tradition. 

"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good." The greatest 
of all calamities has had at least one good effect; it has 
awakened many Americans to the perception that the deaf, 
blind, unreasoning tradition of "no alliances" would be a 
crime, did we not know that it is simply the effect of the 
inattention common even among the most advanced human 
types. 

"If we are not willing to urge our own government to join 
a movement for peace," says President Lowell, of Harvard 
University (World Peace Foundation, 40 Mount Vernon St., 
Boston, Pamphlet Series^ October, 1915), "we have no busi- 
ness to discuss any plan for the purpose. It is worse than 
futile, it is an impertinence, for Americans to advise the 
people of Europe how they ought to conduct their affairs 
if we have nothing in common with them; to suggest to 
them conventions, with burdens which are well enough for 
them, but which we are not willing to share. If our peace 
organizations are not prepared to have us take part in the 
plans they devise, they had better disband, or confine their 
discussions to Pan-American questions. 

Would it be wise for the United States to make so great 
a departure from its traditional policy? The wisdom of 
consistency lies in adherence to a principle so long as the 
conditions upon which it is based remain unchanged. But 
the conditions that affect the relation of America to Europe 
have changed greatly since 1796. At that time it took 
about a month to cross the ocean. Ships were small and 
could carry few troops. Their guns had a short range. No 



29 

country had more than what would now be called a very 
small army; and it was virtually impossible for any foreign 
nation to make more than a raid upon our territory before 
we could organize and equip a sufficient force to resist, how- 
ever unprepared we might be at the outset. But now, by 
the improvements in machinery, the Atlantic has shrunk 
to a lake, and before long will shrink to a river. Except 
for the protection of the navy, and perhaps in spite of it, a 
foreign nation could land on our coast an army of such size, 
and armed with such weapons, that unless we maintain 
troops several times larger than our present forces we should 
be quite unable to oppose them before we had suffered in- 
calculable damage. 

It is all very well to assert that we have no desire to 
quarrel with any one, or any one with us; but good inten- 
tions in the abstract, even if accompanied by long-suffering 
and a disposition to overlook affronts, will not always keep 
us out of strife. When a number of great nations are locked 
in a death grapple, they are a trifle careless of the rights of 
the bystander. * * * Except by colossal self-deception 
we cannot believe that the convulsions of Europe do not 
affect us profoundly; that wars there need not disturb us; 
that we are not in danger of being drawn into them; or 
even that we may not some day find ourselves in the direct 
path of the storm. If our interest in the maintenance of 
peace is not quite so strong as that of some other nations, it is 
certainly strong enough to warrant our taking steps to pre- 
serve it, even to the point of joining a league to enforce it. 
The cost of the insurance is well worth the security to us. 

If mere material self-interest would indicate such a course, 
there are other reasons to confirm it. Civilization is to some 
extent a common heritage which it is worth while for all 
nations to defend, and war is a scourge which all people 
should use every rational means to reduce. If the family of 
nations can, by standing together, make wars less frequent, 
it is clearly their duty to do so, and in such a body we do 
not want the place of our own country to be vacant." 



30 

Still more forcible is an utterance in The New Republic, 
November 20, 1915, page 58: 

"The greatest obstacle is the American tradition of 
national isolation — the sense that by committing ourselves 
to European responsibilities we should be surrendering 
something essential and noble in our heritage of democracy. 
This tradition is the enemy which must be exposed and ex- 
terminated, for unless it is exterminated we shall have mis- 
interpreted the chief lesson of the war and permitted the 
nation to continue a policy of suicidal exclusiveness. 
* * * There can be no permanent security unless the 
pacific nations are welded into an organization sufficiently 
tough, alert, clear-headed, and well equipped to make their 
joint power count decisively in the balance against an ag- 
gressive disturber of the peace." 

To repeat, lest we forget : We are simply Europeans, born 
or naturalized in America. We are a great, rich, orderly, 
civilized nation because we are Englishmen, Welshmen, 
Scotchmen, Irishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, Dutchmen, 
Scandinavians. 

A Civilization-wide Constitutional Convention. 

On November 18, 1915, at the annual banquet of the 
Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, Mr. Dar- 
win P. Kingsley delivered an address, "Democracy vs. 
Sovereignty," which is perhaps the most logical bit of 
reasoning that has appeared during the war, and ought to 
be read by every sincere American patriot. 

"We should signify our willingness," he says, "to meet 
representatives of all the considerable powers of the world 
in an International Congress, the purpose of which shall 
be similar to that of the convention which met in Philadel- 
phia in 1787. We should in that Congress stand for the 
civilizing and humanizing of international relations by 
whatever steps may be necessary. If as a nation we must 



31 

surrender what each colony seemed to surrender in 1789, we 
should stand for that. We should find when the time came 
—as our fathers did— that we had actually surrendered only 
a little false pride, a little hate, a little prejudice and a little 
fear and had entered, as the Colonies did, upon the only 
order that leads to peace and true greatness. We shall not 
of course, reach the ultimate goal at one bound. A world 
state modeled after our Federal Constitution may be a long 
way off, but a real beginning would be a transcendent 

achievement. 

If we now arm— as we should— and do only that, we 
shall show ourselves a nation of ingrates. If we arm and 
say to Europe that we are ready at any time to disarm, ready 
with them to create an international state, a state in which 
international questions shall be settled as our interstate ques- 
tions are, a state in which war would ultimately become as 
impossible, as unthinkable as it now is between Massachu- 
setts and New York— if we try to do that, we shall sho>v 
ourselves morally at least to be worthy descendants of the 
intrepid men who signed the Declaration of 1776, worthy 
successors of the great democrats who fashioned the charter 
of our liberties in 1787." 

A word of comment on these resolute utterances may not 
be inappropriate. The thirteen colonies had for 150 years 
lived a common life as dependencies of the same mother 
country, and until 1775 no thought of separate existence 
had entered their minds. They had won their freedom 
together, had lived 12 years in at least technical union, and 
had made treaties as one nation. Their language, laws, 
habits and traditions were practically the same, and their 
real and imaginary interests were more nearly alike than 
those of any other group of states in history. They had 
never spoken of one another as "hereditary enemies," nor 
learned to consider the epithets "false," "perfidious," almost 
as integral parts of their neighbors' names. Yet with all 
this, as Mr. Kingsley himself points out, the Federal Union 



32 

came within an inch of being rejected. Had an attempt 
been made to include other states, with different language, 
laws, traditions and interests — say Canada, Cuba and 
Mexico, supposing that these had been free — their failure to 
federate would have become a certainty. 

A more impressive lesson of the stubbornness of human 
nature can hardly be imagined. This is the lesson that we 
shall have to bear in mind if we wish to make progress in 
the work of world federation. If all the nations are to be 
invited to the first World Constitutional Convention, it is 
bound to be a failure, or only a nominal success. If we 
wish to build up a solid super-nation — as Edward D. Page 
calls it — strong enough to enforce the world's peace, we 
must invite only those nations whose real or imaginary 
interests are most nearly identical, and even of these nations 
we must not try to include more than will suffice to make 
their united strength securely preponderant over any con- 
ceivable counter-combination. 

Britain, France, Germany and the United States united 
would be securely and permanently predominant and thus 
be enabled and compelled to enforce peace. These four 
will suffice; less than these four will not suffice. Their in- 
terests and traditions are more nearly alike than those of 
any other nations, but of course far less so than were the 
interests and traditions of the thirteen colonies. If the 
colonies, with far more pressing need of union, and long 
trained in the habit of union, nevertheless came within an 
inch of disruption, it may be imagined how difficult it will 
be to unite four nations long separated by hereditary ani- 
mosities. Ponder over this a moment and you will see that 
the proposal to include more than four nations in the initial 
combination, and thus to insure the failure of the effort,, 
would be nothing less than insanity. 



33 



President Wilson in Favor of an Alliance. 

The following extracts from President Wilson's speech 
before the League to Enforce Peace, on May 27, 1916, show 
that he is willing to bid goodby to the traditional policy of 
no alliances. 

"The longer the war lasts the more deeply do we become 
concerned that it should be brought to an end. And when 
it does come to an end, we shall be as much concerned as the 
nations at war to see peace assume an aspect of permanence, 
give promise of days from which the anxiety of uncertainty 
shall be lifted. 

We are participants, whether we would or not, in the life 
of the world. The interests of all nations are our own also. 
We are partners with the rest. What affects mankind is 
inevitably our affair as well as the affair of the nations of 
Europe and of Asia. 

Repeated utterances of the leading statesmen of most of 
the great nations now engaged in war have made it plain 
that their thought has come to this, that the principle of 
public right must henceforth take precedence over the in- 
dividual interests of particular nations, and that the nations 
of the world must in some way band themselves together to 
see that the right prevails against any sort of selfish aggres- 
sion; that henceforth alliance must not be set up against 
alliance, understanding against understanding, but that 
there must be a common agreement for a common object, 
and that at the heart of that common object must lie the 
inviolable rights of peoples and of mankind. 

This is undoubtedly the thought of America. That 
thought constitutes a chief part of the passionate conviction 
of America. 

So sincerely do we believe in these things that I am sure 

that I speak the mind and wish of the people of America 

when I say that the United States is willing to become a 

partner in any feasible association of nations formed in 

3v 



34 

order to realize these objects and make them secure against 
violation. 

But I did not come here to discuss a program. I came 
only to avow a creed and give expression to the confidence 
I feel that the world is even now upon the eve of a great 
consummation, when some common force will be brought 
into existence which shall safeguard right as the first and 
most fundamental interest of all peoples and all govern- 
ments, when coercion shall be summoned not to the service 
of political ambition or selfish hostility, but to the service of 
a common order, a common justice, and a common peace." 

Views of Senator John Sharp Williams. 

Commenting on the preceding speech, Senator John 
Sharp Williams remarked as follows: 

"President Wilson's suggestions, in line with those of the 
League to Enforce Peace, do and do not conflict with Wash- 
ington's farewell advice against 'entangling alliances.' 

A compact of nations, agreeing to use force against an 
international disturber of the peace, certainly is an alliance 
with unmistakable entanglements, but it is not the sort of 
alliance Washington had in mind. Washington thought 
of such alliances as where nations A, B, and C joined for 
selfish purposes against nations D and E, perhaps to prose- 
cute the pet wars of hereditary lines of princes. 

Were Washington standing in Wilson' 1 - place today he 
would see the wisdom of joining national action against in- 
ternational brawlers." 

Arm to Disarm. 

So long as the Quadruple Alliance is not yet a fact, it will 
indeed be good policy to adopt the most thoroughgoing pro- 
gram of "preparedness," as the indispensable means to make 
our alliance valuable enough to our prospective partners, in 
particular, to convince Britain that Anglo-American reunion 



35 

would indeed mean the perpetual security of the British 
empire. However, as soon as the scare created by the war 
has subsided, as soon as the Quadruple Alliance is in work- 
ing order, and has tasted the luxury of omnipotence ; as soon 
as the world has grown fond of the comfort of being ruled 
by the elite, we should have no cogent motive to retain the 
enlarged army and navy. Our three prospective partners are 
amply equipped to keep the globe quiet if they can be 
united. All that is required of us is that we take the initi- 
ative toward their union, an initiative which for them 
would be a superhuman task, for us a mere matter of the 
slight effort to open our eyes to our own glaring advantage. 

True Americanism. 

In a word, the greatest opportunity in all history is knock- 
ing at the door of the United States — the opportunity to 
bestow eternal peace on mankind, and thus to gain the per- 
manent place of honor among the nations. If our states- 
men fail to perceive their duty, they will become responsible 
for an unsightly blot on our national record. It would be 
nothing less than treason to humanity — treason to our own 
most sacred interests. The highest duty, the highest honor 
of every nation, consists in rendering the greatest possible 
service to humanity. Sham Americanism says, "Am I my 
brother's keeper?" To make America supreme among the 
nations, through supreme service rendered, is the truest 
Americanism. 

Ask the People. 

The issue thus presented is so momentous that our legis- 
lators will hardly deem their powers adequate to deal with it. 
Nothing less than an appeal to the court of last resort, the 
American people, will afford a safe basis of action. In view 
of the sincerity and high sense of honor which the majority 
of American voters have shown on innumerable occasions, 



36 

they surely deserve to be consulted on this most important 
of all questions. No patriot will be content to see his coun- 
trymen defrauded of the priceless opportunity which is 
rightfully theirs. To refuse to submit this question to them 
on the ground that they are not intelligent or high-minded 
enough to vote in the affirmative would be to insult the 
American people. Let us have a little modesty, and confess 
that not one of us is smart enough to know what the Amer- 
ican people think until we ask them and receive their 
answer. 

Armistice, the Sooner the Better. 

The preparations for this popular vote would of course 
require considerable time, during which the horrible 
slaughter would continue. What is needed is an act of states- 
manship which will lead to an early armistice. It is in the 
power of Congress to render this inestimable service to hu- 
manity by simply adopting a resolution somewhat as fol- 
lows: 

Proposed Resolution. 

Resolved, etc., That it is desirable to have a popular vote 
on the following question: 

Shall the United States, after the present European war, 
offer to conclude a defensive alliance with Britain, France, 
and Germany? 

No Risk. 

By referring the question to the people for decision, Con- 
gress would assume the minimum of responsibility, and yet 
the mere passage of the resolution would suffice, because it 
would assure full discussion, and the result of a popular vote 
after adequate discussion can hardly be doubted by any one 
who has the least faith in human nature. 



37 



Create the Occasion for Mediation. 

Within a short time the trend of American opinion would 
be sufficiently known to justify the belligerents in conclud- 
ing an armistice. For that matter, the passage of the reso- 
lution would by itself create the opportunity for mediation, 
which might result in an immediate armistice. 



Summary and Supplement. 

Until within a few hundred years war was almost uni- 
versal and chronic. During the past century peace has been 
almost universal. How did the change come about? Not 
through voluntary agreements among the nations, but 
through the consolidation of thousands of small nations 
into a few large ones, each with a strong executive power 
maintaining internal peace. Let this process be carried to 
its conclusion, and eternal peace is assured. If we are as 
civilized, as practical, energetic, public-spirited as we claim 
to be, the final consolidation will be voluntary, not com- 
pulsory. Let the wisest and strongest of the great nations 
consolidate into one overwhelming, irresistible power, and 
they will be able to forbid war among other nations, and 
will be compelled by self-interest to forbid it, when they no 
longer stand in each other's way. 

And the nation which shall prove its superior wisdom by 
taking the lead in this movement will be the Queen of 
Nations for all time to come. 

We have as yet no science of peace, though the elements 
of it are in existence, scattered through works on ethics, his- 
tory, and especially political economy and sociology. By 
summarizing this material, some sociologist may at any 
moment win immortal fame as the founder of the science 



of peace. Its leading idea will doubtless be that of a final 
consolidation. It may not be premature to sketch a tentative 
outline of such a science, as applied to the present situation. 

The Science of Peace in Twenty Theorems. 

1. Mediation in the present European war would be little 
more than a formality unless a plan were presented which 
would make it safe for the combatants to stop fighting. 

2. Lasting peace is inconceivable without an irresistible 
power to enforce it. 

3. In order that peace may be a blessing, this power must 
consist of the freest, most enlightened, and humane nations. 

4. In order to be efficient, that power must be large 
enough to be irresistible, but not so large, in its initial stage, 
as to be paralyzed and disrupted by conflicting interests. 

5. International agreements aiming to maintain the 
world's peace cannot be safely trusted to bear the test of 
trial in time of stress, unless they are primarily designed to 
promote the self-interests of the contracting parties. Com- 
mon interests, not mere papers, must be the connecting links. 

6. The true self-interests of Britain, France, Germany, 
and the United States, the four strongest, freest, most en- 
lightened, and humane nations, are most nearly identical 
and therefore most apt to be promoted by union, being at 
the same time most nearly identical with the best interests 
of all humanity. Britain and Germany, in the spring of 
1914, had in fact concluded that their interests were iden- 
tical, and they were on the point of coming to an agreement 
when the war broke out. 

7. A league of these four nations, though primarily 
designed for their own benefit, would by its overwhelming 
strength be enabled, and by sheer self-interest be compelled, 
to act as an International Executive Power enforcing the 
world's peace. 

8. Not one of the four nations can be omitted. Unless 



39 

Britain were reinforced by the United States, she would 
feel that in an Anglo-Franco-German alliance she would 
soon be overshadowed by Germany. The German-Ameri- 
cans will not consent to an alliance with Britain unless 
Germany be included; neither will the other Americans 
consent to an alliance with Germany unless Britain and 
France be included. Moreover, Britain could not desert 
her best friend for her present enemy. A bird in the hand 
is worth two in the bush. 

9. Every well-wisher of Britain and France ought to 
consider that, by opposing an alliance with Germany, he 
would forego the pleasure of political union with Britain 
and France and deprive them of the security which our 
alliance would offer; every well-wisher of Germany ought 
to consider that, by opposing an alliance with Britain and 
France, he would forego the delight of reunion with the 
Fatherland and rob her of what may be her last chance of 
assuring her continuance as a great power. 

10. Were this Quadruple Alliance once started, the daily 
enjoyment of its omnipotence would soon cause it to grow 
into a habit having the permanence of a law of nature. 
The cement will set. 

11. The consolidation even of the four nations whose 
participation is essential, and whose interests are easiest to 
reconcile, will be a task of almost superhuman difficulty. 
It were folly to increase the risk of failure by attempting 
to include in the initial union other nations, whose par- 
ticipation is not indispensable and whose interests are more 
difficult to reconcile. 

12. It is practically certain, however, that this Quadruple 
Alliance, when once in working order, would promptly be 
joined by the Scandinavian states and probably by other 
equally free and enlightened states. 

13. The offer of our alliance would not be worth much 
to the other nations unless we possessed an adequate arma- 
ment. 



40 

14. The prospect of an alliance for mutual benefit be- 
tween Britain, France, Germany, and an adequately-armed 
United States would suggest to the belligerents a possibility 
of withdrawing from the conflict with mutual advantage 
and would thus constitute the best preparation for early and 
effective mediation. 

15. To put the case in a nutshell, if Britain and Ger- 
many can be made to enter into partnership, the world's 
peace is forever secure. They will do so when the United 
States, equipped with an adequate armament, offers her 
alliance to both, thus assuring their future safety. 

16. By this plan the strongest immediate armament 
would become the best assurance against its actual use, 
and the surest, safest, shortest, cheapest road to a gradual 
reduction of armaments to the minimum compatible with 
the maintenance of an irresistible International Executive 
Power. Arm to disarm. 

17. It is practically certain that the responsibility im- 
posed on us by our participation in this combination would 
be merely nominal, since the other three nations are amply 
equipped to keep the globe at peace as soon as they are 
united. All we have to do is to unite them by offering 
our well-armed alliance to all three. 

18. This voluntary alliance with our three parent nations 
would thus be not entangling but disentangling, affording 
us perpetual security and important national advantages at 
little cost, and probably relieving us of the future necessity 
of seeking alliances, which in time of embarrassment we 
could not obtain without severe sacrifice?. 

19. The initiative in this matter is easy for the United 
States and almost impossible for any other nation. Hence 
it is our duty. 

20. It would be an act of despotism to defraud the Ameri- 
can people of their right to be heard on a matter of such 
supreme importance to them. Hence it should be sub- 
mitted to their votes. 



41 



Eugenic Peace. 

The present pamphlet was printed under the title of 
"Eugenic Peace" on October 28, 1915. In a subsequent 
issue the title was changed, several critics having pointed out 
that it might harm the cause, since eugenics is largely re- 
garded as a fad. To hide the essential idea behind a less 
essential one seems a bit of cowardice, but most readers will 
admit that the present title is more useful for popular pur- 
poses. 

To those who are familiar with the subject, the term 
"Eugenic Peace" is almost self-explanatory and self-demon- 
strative. Not many decades will pass before the name of 
Galton, the father of eugenics, will take rank among the 
most renowned in history, one of the most brilliant figures 
in Britain's hall of fame. Instead of being a fad, eugenics 
is the culmination of human intelligence. All movements, 
including the peace movement, are salutary or pernicious 
according as they do or do not conform to the principles of 
this master science. The reasoning is very simple. 

National conduct, like individual conduct, is right or 
wrong according as it tends to increase or diminish human 
happiness. Human happiness depends mainly on the con- 
stitution of men themselves. For the purposes of society, 
men are superior or inferior according as their presence tends 
to raise or lower the general level of happiness. Hence the 
ultimate aim of true statesmanship must be to give to the 
superior types of men the best chance to spread. 

In order to have the chance, they must have the power. 
The proverbial source of power is union. The way to get 
union is to make a beginning ; to unite a number of superior 
human elements into a nucleus large enough to attract the 
rest. The only conceivable nucleus is one consisting of the 
British empire, France, Germany and the United States. 
These four would constitute an International Executive 



42 

Power strong enough to enforce perpetual, universal, eu- 
genic peace. 

Hence the Anglo-Franco-German-American alliance is 
the supreme need, to which everything else must be subor- 
dinated. It is the duty of the United States to take the 
initiative, because it is easy for us and almost impossible for 
the other three nations. If we take this initiative, our 
national conduct will be good; if we refuse, our national 
conduct will be bad. 

Eugenics and Anti-eugenics. 

The doctrine just set forth may be made clearer by con- 
trast with its opposite. 

In The Empire Review for April, 1916, the Honorable 
William Morris Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia, 
speaking of "the cancer of German influence in our trade 
and industry," and describing how "the entire fabric of 
British industry was being honeycombed by German enter- 
prise" (it was no part of his thesis, of course, to describe 
how the entire fabric of German industry and of the in- 
dustry of every country is honeycombed by British enter- 
prise), says: "Let us of this great empire resolutely deter- 
mine that, come what may, Germany shall never fatten 
upon our pastures. The world is wide; let her go where 
she will, trade with any, spy upon whom she pleases, but 
not with us." In the last paragraph he goes a step further: 
"If our allies follow our lead, as I believe they would, Ger- 
man credit and German confidence in ultimate victory 
would topple like a house of cards. As soon as the fin- 
anciers, manufacturers and the people of Germany realized 
that the markets of the British empire and France and 
Russia were permanently closed against them, the bubble 
of their hopes would be burst, and confusion and dismay 
would spread through the land, dissensions honeycomb their 
political structure, and the specter of revolution rear his 



43 

sinister head. Let us then do this obvious, sensible and 
necessary thing." 

Stripped of rhetoric, the "obvious, sensible and necessary 
thing" amounts to this : 

"The Germans work harder than we do. If we do not 
want them to get ahead of us, we must do one of two 
things : either work as hard as they do, or prevent them from 
working so hard. We Britons should consider it plebeian 
to work harder than we now do, and moreover we need our 
time, attention and energy for the gentlemanly pursuits of 
cricket, fox-hunting and horse races; therefore we must 
prevent the Germans from working so hard. This we can 
do in two ways: (1) by preventing them from acquiring 
any more land to work on, (2) by agreeing with the other 
easy-working and less educated peoples not to buy anything 
from the Germans, nor allow them to make investments out- 
side of their own land. It is a crime to work so hard, and 
we must punish them for it. Of course, in order to punish 
it, we must not call it work ; we must call it militarism." 

A more frankly anti-eugenic program cannot be con- 
ceived. It is enough to make Galton groan in his grave. 
Other things being equal, the hardest workers are the most 
desirable citizens and therefore have the best right to spread. 
Here is a man who deliberately plans to prevent the hardest 
workers from spreading, to punish them for working so 
hard. 

His frankness becomes all the more amazing because of 
his outspoken admiration for Germany. He plainly tells 
his fellow-Britons that the German government is doing 
exactly what the British government ought to do, and that 
therefore the German government must be crushed. "The 
whole concept of modern statesmanship needs revision. 
But England has been, and is, the chief of sinners. 
* * * Germany is today the best organized nation in 
the world. And to this fact she owes her tremendous 
strength. She presents to the world the impressive spectacle 



44 

of a great nation whose myriad activities move in response 
to a settled purpose, to carry out which every individual in 
that great nation consecrates his whole energies and his life. 
There is no aimless rushing hither and thither, no dissipa- 
tion of energy, no divided control or lack of control. There 
is one leader, and all men follow him. And the efforts of 
every individual are systematized; all are cogs in a mon- 
strous and marvelously intricate machine, which moves as 
the supreme master wills. Every resource of science, of 
mechanical invention, has been organized. The ganglia of 
the national organism are highly developed, the correlation 
between them complete, the whole organism is streaked with 
nerve tissue. In short, Germany is an organized nation. 
Its efforts are systematized. Every man has his allotted 
task. They not only carefully avail themselves of the serv- 
ices of the highest scientific and expert minds, they create 
facilities by which these may achieve the best results. In 
Germany every need of the people is known, every means to 
supply it exploited. Before the war, every problem affect- 
ing industry, commerce, health, national safety, was sys- 
tematically attacked by the best brains of Germany. The 
advance made by Germany during the last twenty-five years 
is the best proof of the value of her methods." 

This eulogy (except the word "monstrous") sounds like 
another instance of England's reputed love of fair play, and 
the unsophisticated reader naturally expects to find the 
author proceeding somewhat in this fashion: "Since the 
German government takes better care of its subjects than 
any other government, it ought to have as many subjects 
as possible. If the governing bodies of other lands really 
have the welfare of their own people at heart, they ought 
to petition Germany to annex them. If we Englishmen 
are too proud to do that, let us at least do the next best 
thing: enter into the closest possible union with the 'Older 
England.' Let us tell our German brothers how proud we 
are to belong to the same race as they do. And since we 



45 

have enough land, let us afford to our progressive brothers 
every opportunity to extend their enlightening, stimulating 
influence over the remaining neglected countries. No 
better luck could befall the inhabitants of any country than 
to be taken under Germany's protection." 

Great is the unsophisticated reader's astonishment on 
finding that the author has enumerated Germany's virtues 
merely as so many motives for crushing her. This superb 
ability which he describes, this public spirit, this self-control, 
this devotion to ideals, which is rejuvenating the world, and 
is held up by the author himself as a model for England 
to imitate, is in the next breath called "a cancer." Because 
England has hitherto been too lazy or too conceited to revise 
her concept of modern statesmanship, she is "the chief of 
sinners;" because Germany had intelligence enough to 
create the modern concept of statesmanship } and energy 
enough to adopt it, is she therefore the chief of saints? O, 
no; she is "a cancer." The nation which has banished 
illiteracy from her own land must not be allowed to educate 
the unfortunate inhabitants of the Near East; that task 
must be entrusted to a nation with 62 per cent of illiterates. 
All the backward nations must be invited by England to 
join her in an effort to stifle the most advanced nation, the 
nation that has developed the very policy which the author 
declares to be the best for every country, especially for his 
own. A truly noble work for England to undertake ! 

British statesmen constantly insist that they have none 
but the kindest intentions toward the German people; that 
they merely wish to crush the German government — the 
very government which, according to Mr. Hughes, takes 
the best care of its people. It appears that British statesmen 
expect the British public to believe that no harm will be 
done to the German people by shutting them out of the 
world's markets or by depriving them of the government 
which has made them the most educated, the most efficient 
nation in the world. If the British public do believe this — ■ 



46 

and British statesmen may be assumed to know their 
audience — what must be the intellectual condition of the 
average Briton ! 

Fortunately, no one who knows anything of human 
nature or political economy will consider Mr. Hughes' pro- 
gram practicable. Its author will be the first to send it to 
the junk shop as soon as it has served its purpose as verbal 
artillery. Voices from Asia long ago notified the four 
million Australians that they have no right to keep a con- 
tinent of three million square miles in a state of solitude 
while nine hundred million Asiatics are eager to colonize 
it. To keep Australia white (which can only be justified 
on the eugenic theory that the superior human types have 
the best right to spread) will require the strength of the 
united white race. Australians know that the attempt to 
split the white race and reinforce the yellow race, by driving 
the strongest and most energetic white nation into the arms 
of the Russo-Japanese alliance, would seal the fate of white 
Australia, Suppose Britain did succeed in crushing Ger- 
many ; two years would not pass before she would be tortured 
by remorse. 

"O my offense is rank ; it smells to heaven ! 
It hath the primal, eldest curse upon it, 
A brother's murder." 

"The obvious, sensible and necessary thing" for the 
British to do is to say to their hard-working German 
brothers: "We have enough land; you can have whatever 
remains." Mr. Asquith did practically say this three years 
ago, and the only reason why Britain has hesitated to act up 
to it is because she feared that so hard-working and well- 
organized a people as the Germans would become predomi- 
nant if allowed even the small sphere of influence still 
remaining for them. Remove that fear, by means of 
Anglo-American reunion, and Britain and Germany will 
instantly be allies, and Australia, Canada and the United 
States will forever remain white. 



47 

This, then, is at this moment the supremely needful aim 
of statesmanship. We of America can accomplish it by 
offering our alliance to both Britain and Germany. If we 
wish to assure our own most prosperous development, un- 
hampered by the necessity of providing against attack; if 
we are sincere in our professed desire to bestow on mankind 
the blessing of perpetual righteous peace; if we wish to see 
America enthroned as Queen of the Nations for all time to 
come — "the obvious, sensible and necessary thing" for us 
to do is to invite Britain, France and Germany to join us in 
a Quadruple League of Civilization. 

If we are not noble enough to take this initiative for the 
sake of humanity, let us at least have foresight enough to 
do it for the sake of avoiding our own ruin. If the nine 
hundred million people of Asia are freed from European 
control and armed as Japan is armed, they will inevitably 
demand unrestricted admission for their emigrants to all 
parts of the globe. No paper treaties, no school-made 
maxims of international law will avail against that 
elemental force. You might as well make a treaty with the 
Mississippi River or with the lava of Vesuvius. When the 
demand comes, backed by a navy six times stronger than 
ours, we shall vainly look for allies — unless we take care 
beforehand that all our possible allies shall not be ruined 
before our need arises. The only means to escape the corn- 
ing doom is the union of the white race, and this will neces- 
sarily be of slow growth. A stitch in time saves nine. 
Start the Quadruple Alliance, and your own country will 
be safe forever. Those who try to hinder this work will 
not only be traitors to humanity, but traitors to their own 
country. Should they succeed in defeating "the obvious, 
sensible and necessary thing," their names will be cursed by 
their children and grandchildren. 

227 F street N. E., Washington, D. C. 



48 

OPINIONS. 

(Condensed.) 

I heartily endorse these aims, believing that only by the assump- 
tion of some responsibility for the welfare of the world can we 
escape the odium into which we are now rapidly advancing, of the 
man who grows rich on the calamity of his neighbors. I believe 
that a popular referendum would be wise and timely. So momentous 
a change in the traditional attitude of the United States can not be 
accomplished without country-wide agitation. Probably the method 
of the proposed joint resolution would be efficacious at home. It 
would also have a salutary effect abroad in counteracting the gen- 
eral impression that America has no policy save the most odious 
selfishness. — B. W. Bacon, Professor of New Testament Criticism 
and Exegesis, Yale University ; Former Director American School 
of Archeology at Jerusalem. 

I would welcome the proposed alliance between Britain, Germany, 
France and the United States. If carried out on the lines proposed, 
it could hardly fail to make for the peace of the world. But Britain 
and France are in no mood to consider the proposition. As for our- 
selves, we shall probably have to learn from bitter experience. I 
am sorry that I can not write more encouragingly for the realiza- 
tion of the admirable ideals embodied in the proposed resolution. — 
Sylvester Baxter, Secretary Metropolitan Improvement League, Bos- 
ton, Mass. 

The time is certainly ripe for us to reach some conclusion as to 
what part this country is to take in helping to police and regulate 
the intercourse among nations. No one could well dispute your propo- 
sition that the peace of the world is alone to be secured by a combi- 
nation of the strong nations. That this can be accomplished is shown 
by the history of the United States. It was thought impossible to 
have a judicial system that would be satisfactory to the independent 
units which had combined. That such fears were groundless is proved 
by our experience. Why should not the same plan be extended among 
those nations that are now filled with the horrors of war, and must 
be convinced of the utter uselessness of war as a method of deciding 
questions among civilized nations? 

We have been educated in a belief in the principle that we should 
avoid entangling alliances ; but can this doctrine be applied as the 
world is now constituted? When we were a weak nation, hardly able 
to cope with our own difficulties, it was true that we were unable to 
take part in bringing about the settlement of the world's affairs ; and 
as we were remote, we could well devote ourselves to the home gov- 
ernment and not be molested by other nationalities. But neither of 
these reasons is now applicable. We could have the strength if we 
wanted to develop it, and we are no longer remote or uninfluenced 
by other nations. Should we then use this strength when we are con- 
vinced that it would be for the betterment of the world? With the 
power to do, there would seem to be coupled the obligation to take 
our part. Our ideals of our national life would seem to leave us no 



49 

alternative. If we conceive it as our high prerogative to unselfishly 
do that which shall inure to the benefit of the world, we must do our 
duty. We know that if improvement and struggle for better things 
is abandoned, it means deterioration. If our ideals mean anything, 
and are founded upon what is best for this country and for the world 
at large, we must try to force the lawless to respect them. Is it not 
equally true that all the protection of remoteness has now been dissi- 
pated? The experiences of this war have shown us that we cannot 
help being injured and the safety of our citizens put in jeopardy 
when other nations are fighting. 

Should, then, the question be submitted to the people? Have they 
been educated up to the point where their answer would be one based 
on knowledge and not on the desire to stand by old ideas, and on the 
great temptation to do nothing and trust to luck for the future? I 
doubt whether the time is ripe for such a test. Should not the leaders 
take their course by the promptings of their own wisdom and experi- 
ence and not be led by the inexperience of their constituents? The 
old doctrines emanated from and were maintained by the leaders and 
not by the voice of the people. Does it not hold true that the same 
course should be maintained when new duties require a modification 
of what our forbears thought expedient? — Charles Biddle, of Biddle, 
Paul & Jayne, Counsellers at Law and Proctors in Admiralty, 505 
Chestnut street, Philadelphia. 

Your plan is simplicity itself. An alliance between England and 
Germany would mean eternal peace. We can create it by offering 
our alliance to both. England could then afford to consent to every 
demand which Germany is likely to make, since it is evident that 
Germany could never become dangerous to the united English-speak- 
ing people. Germany will not make unreasonable demands. She 
merely wants to assure her own future, not to imperil her neighbors' 
future. 

To us Californians this matter is of supreme importance because 
the alliance of the four leading nations means the union of the white 
race, which for us is the vital issue. The surrender of a British 
army to the Turks will be trumpeted through Asia as a victory of 
Asiatics over Europeans. It may lead to a revolt in India, which 
Britain would be unable to suppress. Mongolians and Hindus would 
thus be combined into a power of 815 millions, against whom it would 
be impossible in the long run to shut our doors. Nothing but the 
union of the white race could then prevent our Pacific Coast from 
becoming an Asiatic colony. 

The loosened pebble starts the avalanche; stop the pebble, and 
there will be no avalanche. It is the duty of the entire white race 
to defend British rule in India; it is Britain's duty not to repel her 
would-be defenders by insisting that they shall resign themselves 
to slow degradation from the rank of a great power. Germany will 
gladly lend her aid for the defense of the British possessions, if 
Britain and the other white nations will but abandon the pre- 
posterous, pernicious claim that they, who have so much land, must 
acquire all the rest, while Germany, who has so little, must not ac- 
quire any. Britain owns more than four times as much land as the 
United States, Russia nearly three times as much, France more than 
one-and-a-half times as much, Germany only one-third as much, most 
of it unfit for white colonization. "You have taken all the meat, 
leave me at least the bones," says Germany. Surely the best-educated 
nation, who puts land to such good use, deserves to have the pitiful 

4v 



50 

remnant of territorial bones. As soon as Britain says yes, Germany 
will be her ally, and the white race will be united and forever se- 
cure. Britain will say yes as soon as she finds that it means Anglo- 
American reunion, which the German-Americans will never permit 
unless Germany be included. 

"In union is strength." We repeat the proverb day after day with 
parrot-like monotony, yet when called upon to put it in practice, we 
act as if we had never heard it. In all the talk about "prepared- 
ness," not a word has been said about the strongest, cheapest of all 
armaments : union with those nations whose interests are identical 
with ours. History is an accumulation of proofs of the uselessness 
of martial skill, armament and bravery, unless these are backed by a 
firmly united population sufficient in numbers and resources. All the 
wealth, ability, and bravery of the ancient Greeks could not save 
them from the ruin which was the necessary consequence of their 
cursed disunion. So will the white race be ruined, unless it becomes 
united. A house divided against itself cannot stand. 

Your plan is too precise, too definite, too simple, too logical, too 
sensible, too self-evident, to appeal to the multitude, who delight in 
mystery, vagueness and generality. It reminds me of a passage in 
Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. In 1754 he proposed a plan 
for the union of the colonies, which in his opinion would have pre- 
vented the disruption of the English-speaking people into two frag- 
ments. The British statesmen thought the plan "too democratic," 
while the American colonial assemblies saw in it "too much pre- 
rogative." Thereupon Franklin remarks : 

"But such mistakes are not new; history is full of the errors of 
states and princes. Those who govern, having much business on their 
hands, do not generally like to take the trouble of considering and 
carrying into execution new projects. The best public measures are 
therefore seldom adopted from previous wisdom, but forced by the 
occasion." 

Even with the terrible lessons of the past in full view, our states- 
men may not have enough "previous wisdom" to adopt "the best 
public measure" — the union of the white race — but may postpone it 
till it is "forced by the occasion" — perhaps too late. 

In a word, the introduction of your resolution would be the most 
important event in history. It is not to be expected that every 
Member of Congress will at once perceive its importance, but at 
least the Members from the Pacific Coast, and the representatives of 
organized labor, who have long been schooled in this line of thought, 
ought to rally to your support without a moment's hesitation. — A. J. 
Boner, Historian, California State Association of the District of 
Columbia, 1404 M Street, Washington, D. C. 

As an American by birth, of German ancestry on my father's side, 
and through my mother, descended from Scotch-English pre-revolu- 
tionary stock, I am naturally led by every impulse of sentiment to 
give unqualified assent to the plan. But in addition to the arguments 
advanced, there are some points which may well merit attention. 

After the war, when England recognizes that it is impossible to 
eliminate Germany as a first-class power, she will find it to her in- 
terest to enter into an alliance with her, if only in order to counter- 
balance the Russo-Japanese alliance now evidently in process of 
formation. France would naturally be obliged to unite herself with 
the two Western powers, and there would thus arise two great 
groups of world-powers, the one having its predominant interests 



51 

centered in the Atlantic, the other looking for its future toward the 
Pacific. 

The United States occupies a somewhat unique position, inasmuch 
as it is both an Atlantic and a Pacific power, and it might appear 
at first sight to be more advantageous for it to form a third great 
American group in conjunction with the South-American republics. 
But of these latter the most important have few interests in the 
Pacific. It would seem, therefore, both on this account and be- 
cause of the close commercial connection between the United States 
and western Europe, which makes the former a predominantly At- 
lantic State, to be in accordance with the best interests of this 
country to join the British-German-French alliance. Not only would 
the United States be effectively protected by it from an attack on 
the Pacific side, but the resulting balance of power would be such 
that the danger of war would be almost entirely eliminated. 

If this alliance is concluded between the three western European 
powers alone, it is very doubtful whether the United States would be 
in a position to demand admittance as a partner unless it takes the 
initiative in the matter, and it is quite possible that no invitation 
would be forthcoming. It is for this reason that I regard Mr. Stein's 
proposition as of such importance ; if the United States has once gone 
on record in suggesting the alliance, it cannot be passed over later 
when the European powers come to an understanding. The United 
States does not thereby assume any obligation, and if the terms of 
the alliance should not meet with its approval, it could always with- 
draw. 

Any other grouping of the western powers would be inadvisable. 
To include Russia would mean the injection into the alliance of 
purely Asiatic questions with which the Atlantic powers have no im- 
mediate concern, and the majority of Russian interests in Europe 
are in diametrical opposition to those of Germany and England. To 
exclude Germany, with or without the accession of the United States, 
would force the former to throw in her lot with the Pacific states, 
thereby augmenting their power in a menacing degree. 

The smaller countries of Europe would naturally gravitate around 
the European alliance, but they would not necessarily be called upon 
to contribute their quota of armed forces, their independence being 
guaranteed by the alliance itself. This is an additional reason for 
restricting the primary alliance to the four Great Powers. 

To those who fear the possible dangers involved in "entangling 
alliances," it may be answered that, while the obligations incurred 
by joining a purely defensive alliance designed solely for the preser- 
vation of peace might conceivably under certain circumstances de- 
mand the contribution of an armed force and thus bring about the 
very result that it was expected to prevent, any power or combina- 
tion of powers bent on aggression that had become strong enough to 
risk an attack on the Quadruple Alliance would long before that have 
become a very serious menace to any isolated country. — Rudolph E. 
Briinnow, Professor of Semitic Languages, Princeton University, 
Princeton, N. J. 

I trust you will not hesitate to introduce the joint resolution. I 
would not subscribe to all of Robert Stein's proposals, but I heartily 
approve of the submission to the people of any general measures re- 
garding alliances and conditions involving possible war. — W. H. 
Carruth, Professor of Comparative Literature, Stanford University, 
California. 



52 

The resolution indicates a policy which is emphatically in the right 
direction. The only permanent safeguard of peace must be a union 
of nations. I shall be sorry to see a referendum submitted to the 
people definitely specifying the countries, Britain, France, and Ger- 
many, as the countries with which the United States should conclude 
an alliance. It may or may not be practicable to bring these countries 
together in a single union, and it may be very necessary to include 
some other countries. If the list of countries specified in the refer- 
endum should fail to coincide with the list of countries which it is 
practicable and desirable to unite, the referendum would have to be 
disregarded. My judgment is that preliminary work must be in the 
direction of preparation for some league for ensuring peace. — John 
Bates Clark, Professor of Political Economy, Columbia University, 
New York ; Director of Division of Economics and History, Carnegie 
Endowment for International Peace. 

I have been slowly converted to a belief in armed peace. I am 
entirely in favor of alliances and attach no perennial significance to 
George Washington's famous dictum, despite the fact that it was 
plausible in his day. — Herbert E. Cory, Professor of English, Uni- 
versity of California, Berkeley, Cal. 

So far as at present advised, I can see no objection to providing 
a referendum in the matter, to be done at the time of a regular 
election. — Charles B. Davenport, Director, Station for Experimental 
Evolution of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, Cold Spring 
Harbor, Long Island, N. T. 

The only permanent safeguard of peace will be a union of nations, 
and in whatever form it comes, it must first be brought before the 
people. The above resolution would do this. — Irving Fisher, Professor 
of Political Economy, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 

Any proposal to bring about effective co-operation between Eng- 
land, Germany and the United States deserves serious consideration. 
That these three chief powers of the western world should substitute 
co-operation for competition is a condition essential to the continu- 
ance of western civilization. Other nations may be included, but 
none of the three named can be excluded. 

The United States should possess an armament proportioned to our 
need, not to our resources. The wealth and strength of the United 
States makes it unquestionably desirable that we be included in 
such an alliance, but this does not impose on us the necessity of 
matching our naval and military establishments with those of Great 
Britain and Germany. 

The vote proposed is not provided for in our scheme of government. 
The adoption of such a joint resolution would impose no obligation 
on the several states to conduct such a referendum. Congress might 
advise the states to hold it, but I do not think it could do more. — 
H. A. Garfield, President Williams College, Williamstown. Mass. 

A definite peace plan at last. — James Geddes, Jr., Professor of 
Romance Languages, Boston University, Boston, Mass. 

If the object could be accomplished without a referendum, it would 
be preferable, because the voters are not likely to have the time 
or the desire to inform themselves on so weighty a subject. I do not 
think, however, that there is any chance of getting Congress to take 



53 

the responsibility of so radical a departure from our time-honored 
policy except in response to a vigorous public demand. The only 
way to bring this demand into action is public discussion, and a 
referendum would evidently be the best method for that purpose. — 
R. R. Gurley, M. D., 542 East 79th street, New York. 

I am an earnest advocate of honorable peace, and at the same 
time I am emphatically and irrevocably opposed to transferring the 
diplomatic duties and powers of the President of the United States, 
the Secretary of State and the Senate of the United States to one 
hundred million people who for the most part are and would be in- 
capable of reaching any coherent or worthwhile opinion as to our 
foreign relations. — General George H. Harries, President Omaha 
Electric Light & Power Co., Omaha, Neb. 

The proposed resolution in favor of an Anglo-Franco-German- 
American alliance ought to appeal to every man of German birth or 
descent, because it means Germanic union, the voice of blood which 
is supposed to be thicker than water. Often has that voice spoken 
in vain. Let us hope that it may this time be heeded. 

When Belisarius started to attack the Vandals, a German tribe, 
he was aided by the Goths, another German tribe, who had a grudge 
against the Vandals. No sooner had he beaten the Vandals than he 
turned against the Goths and beat them. Had Goths and Vandals 
stood together, both would have been safe. As Macbeth says, 

"Were they not forced with those that should be ours, 
We might have met them dareful, beard to beard. 
And beat them backward home." 

The Goths were aware of their kinship with the Vandals and of 
their own precarious hold on Italy. They did not know that, in 
siding with the enemy against their kinsmen, they were committing 
treason against the Germanic race ; the racial consciousness had not 
then attained that degree of development. But the unspeakable 
fools ought to have known that they were committing suicide, for 
the ruin of the Vandals left the Gothic kingdom at the mercy of 
Belisarius, whose name, by the way, is conjectured to have been 
Slavic, Belitsar meaning White Tsar. 

Ever since England had a literature, her writers have been boast- 
ing of their German origin. They took pleasure in tracing their 
language, their laws, their parliament back to the forests of Ger- 
many. From that feeling of kinship, hardly less than from common 
interests, sprang the "historic alliance." On hundreds of battle- 
fields Englishmen and Germans have fought side by side ; never until 
1914 did they face each other as enemies, except when hired by 
strangers. Today every intelligent, fair-minded Englishman must 
be prouder than ever to think that he is of the same race as the 
Germans. 

"We put our money on the wrong horse," was Lord Salisbury's 
honest confession regarding the Crimean war. It will be interesting 
to find out whether Mr. Asquith is capable of the same degree of 
candor. At the beginning of the war, some thoughtful Englishmen 
remarked : "Now that we are in, we have to win ; but who will save 
us from the consequences of our victory." Hitherto the very exist- 
ence of Germany has been England's protection in India. It is a 
grotesque fact that even now every German victory makes England's 



54 

hold on India more secure. If Germany is beaten, who will save 
India? Some Englishmen have answered the question with re- 
markable frankness. "Oh, well, we won't let the Germans be crushed 
altogether ; as soon as they find that they are helpless without us, 
they will be glad enough to combine with us on our terms, and then 
India will be safer than ever. All this virtuous indignation over 
the scrap of paper, Belgian atrocities and Prussian militarism is of 
course mere drum play to hearten the reluctant recruits and lessen 
the chances of an American embargo on exports of munitions. The 
real thing that drove us into war was the knowledge that, if France 
and Russia got beaten, we should have to play second fiddle to Ger- 
many. We are fighting to retain our rank as a leading power." 

If* Britain were reunited to the United States, she would not be 
in danger of having to play second fiddle to anybody, and thus her 
only motive for continuing the war would disappear. In other words, 
it is the inestimable privilege of the United States to stop the war, 
effect Germanic union, and assure eternal peace by simply declaring 
her willingness to be reunited to Britain. It is well to recall Wash- 
ington's words : "At first the idea of independence was abhorrent to 
me." With the complete disappearance of the cause of the quarrel 
between the Mother Country and her colonies, the separation of 
these two essentially democratic, English-speaking countries has be- 
come a groundless, unnatural, superannuated tradition, harmful to 
them and to humanity, economically, socially, ethically. With 
modei'n means of communication, their common interests could be 
more easily administered by a common government than the com- 
mon interests of England and Scotland could 100 years ago. 

Is it not equally true that the same modern means of communica- 
tion have rendered the political separation between England and the 
"Older England on the Elbe" an anomaly? An English author 
wrote some years ago : "Englishmen who cross the North Sea to 
Hamburg or Bremen do not feel that they are in a foreign country. 
They see English towns, English faces, English manners, hear Eng- 
lish tones." It ought not to be necessary to point out that some of 
the most prominent men in England, including the entire royal 
family, are of recent German origin. The foremost scientific men 
of England in a recent manifesto frankly admitted that Germany 
leads the world in science, in education, and in that organization 
which is the highest achievement of civilization. It does seem a 
most unbrotherly piece of arrogance on the part of the English, who 
already own the best lands of the globe, to tell their German brothers 
that they can have none of the remaining lands, and that the most 
highly educated nation must not presume to claim a voice in the 
councils of the world. 

Somewhere between 1866 and 1870 the Duke de Gramont said in 
the French Chamber : "A nation, even though absolutely advancing, 
may relatively decline, when some other nation advances faster." 
He drew the inference that it was a vital necessity for France to 
prevent the unification of Germany. Britain today is in the same 
position. She is still advancing along all lines, but Germany, along 
some lines, has been advancing faster, and would advance still 
faster if she had more land. It is a sad state of affairs when one 
nation, in order to hold its own, feels tempted to check the progress 
of another nation and thus the progress of humanity in general. 
Anglo-American reunion would put an end to that temptation for- 
ever. The reunited nation would at once be placed beyond the 



55 

danger of eclipse, and would thereupon have every motive to stimu- 
late, instead of checking, the progress of other nations. In the 
United States we reached that happy condition long ago. No state 
has any motive to feel alarmed, but every motive to rejoice, at the 
progress of other states. 

In this situation it behooves the German-Americans to cast passion 
aside and give to the world an example of that Germanic calm — 
"Granitblockruhe" — which both Englishmen and Germans are fond 
of claiming as one of the leading characteristics of their race. The 
question is not what punishment England should receive for betting 
on the wrong horse ; the sole question to the thinking man of Ger- 
man sympathies is : What is best for Germany ? An alliance would 
evidently be incomparably the best thing for both. It would assure 
Germany's rank as a great power forever ; it would afford the same 
assurance to England. 

Suppose I have a chance to make a million dollars by a deal by 
which Smith would at the same time make $10,000. Suppose I re- 
fuse to put that million dollars in my pocket lest I put that $10,000 
in Smith's pocket. What would my fellow-speculators think of me? 
They would call me a fool. 

That Germany was ready in the spring of 1914 to enter into an 
alliance with England might be proved by volumes of quotations. 
There was ample response in England, but it was overpowered by 
the fear that the alliance would mean annexation to Germany. That 
fear would vanish if the English-speaking peoples were reunited. 
If England becomes convinced that this reunion can be effected by 
including Germany, and that it can be effected in no other way, she 
will quickly take the proper measures to become allied to Germany, 
on practically any conditions that Germany may lay down. Ger- 
many will not lay down any conditions that are unacceptable to 
her Germanic sister. That she is still ready for the alliance is 
proved by S. S. McClure's interview with Dr. Paul Rohrbach and 
many other German leaders of thought, whose answer to that effect 
was "surprisingly unanimous." 

Here, then, is the rational, simple program for the German- 
Amei'icans : Vote against an Anglo-American alliance unless Germany 
be included ; vote for it if Germany be included. 

This is true neutrality — trying to show a way by which all the 
combatants may come out of the fight as gainers. It is also the 
truest Americanism. The best American citizen is he who works 
for the highest interests of his country. Today the highest interest 
of the United States lies in the incomparable opportunity to become 
the leader toward permanent and most righteous peace — most right- 
eous because under the control of the most advanced type of man- 
kind. The man who seeks to gain this honor for his country, not 
by vague, barren eulogies of peace but by working for a definite, 
concrete plan is the best citizen, the truest American. — E. Max Has- 
seloach, 520 F street N. E., Washington, D. C. 

Yes, if these three nations make an alliance each with the other. 
— John R. Haynes, H. D., 2324 South Figueroa street, Los Angeles, 
Cal. 

With the general tenor of the resolution I am heart and soul in 
accord. An alliance between England and Germany seemed to me. 
even before the war, the one way to keep the peace in Europe. If 
America were strong enough to bring about a quadruple alliance 



56 

such as you recommend, it would indeed inaugurate a new era. 
There should be strong emphasis on a few points : the necessity of 
arming if our alliance is to be worth while ; the necessity of submit- 
ting the matter to a general vote. — Ernest F. Henderson, author, 
Member American Historical Association, Monadnock, N. H. 

Referring to your letter of March 27 and accompanying document, 
I feel very thoroughly the force of the arguments presented, but can 
not possibly take the time to write any worthwhile views on the 
subject. — E. L. Ingram, Professor of Railway Engineering and Ge- 
odesy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

I favor the plan to form a defensive alliance with the three powers, 
or, if Germany refuses, with the present entente group. To fail to 
get the strength of organization would be to show our incompetence. 
Organization brought us strength in the adoption of our constitution, 
and further organization of the Celtanglian peoples must be to our 
advantage in promoting peace and in other ways. — Rosicell H. John- 
son, Professor of Geology, University of Pittsburg. 

Amid the clamor of tongues professing neutrality one moment and 
the deafest, blindest partisanship the next, it is a relief to come 
across a man who is so truly neutral as to propose a plan by which 
both parties to the fight may come out gainers. I am doubly delighted 
to find that one of its aims is to restore Ireland to her rightful place 
in the family of nations, not only without loss, but with immense 
gain to England. 

If the Irish-Americans can render this supreme service to Ireland, 
they would place themselves in a very peculiar light if they allowed 
their resentment against England to prevent it. No intelligent 
Irishman will be willing to confess that he hates England more than 
he loves Ireland. If independence cannot be gained for Ireland 
except by an act which will assure the perpetual security of England, 
then in God's name let us remember that we claim the name of 
Christians, and that we should display a very peculiar brand of 
Christianity if we hated our enemies more than we love ourselves. 
After all, the Englishmen who wronged Ireland are all dead. Try 
as we may, we cannot get even with them. Before we decide to 
hate their children, let us find out whether these children intend to 
continue the wrong done by their fathers. If they are willing to 
make amends by giving to Ireland the liberty which she craves, we 
ought not to prevent it by insisting on impossible conditions. 

So long as Britain remains separated from the United States, she 
cannot afford to grant to Ireland complete control of her own 
affairs, for in so doing she would run imminent risk of setting up 
an enemy by her side, who in case of war would furnish a most 
convenient base of operations for a hostile fleet. Quite different 
would be the case if Britain and the United States were reunited as 
members of a world-embracing Celtanglian Federation, the leading 
members in the Anglo-Franco-German-American League of Peace. 
The 4y 2 million people in Ireland would never commit the absurdity 
of cutting loose from a federation containing all the remainder of 
the Irish race, to the number of at least 16 millions. If British 
statesmen saw a definite prospect of Anglo-American reunion, with 
its promise of perpetual security to the British Empire, they would 
hasten to do their share in bringing it about, by declaring their con- 
sent to a clause in the treaty of federation, stipulating that Ireland 



57 

shall be admitted to the federation as an equal ; in other words, that 
Ireland's subordination to Britain shall cease, being replaced by 
that subordination to the Federal Government to which all the mem- 
bers would be equally subject. 

Thus the rational thing for the Irish-Americans to do is to say 
to Britain : "We will vote for Anglo-American federation as soon as 
you agree that Ireland shall be a co-ordinate, not a subordinate 
member of the Federation. Until you agree to this, we will vote 
against federation." 

Such a declaration would promptly produce the desired effect, 
and thus secure for the Irish-Americans the credit of having taken 
an essential part in establishing the world's peace on a permanent 
basis. 

(Second Letter.) 

I am informed that you are considering a proposed resolution 
providing for an alliance between Britain, France, Germany and the 
United States, as an international executive power to enforce the 
world's peace. As an Irish-American writing to an Irish-American, 
allow me to express the fervent hope that you will not neglect this 
incomparable opportunity to secure for our race the leadership to- 
ward the union of civilization, the union of Christendom, and per- 
petual peace, and at the same time to restore Ireland to her rightful 
place among the nations. 

What the immediate effect of the resolution would be, it is of 
course impossible to foretell. It may pass unnoticed in the turmoil 
of the incipient campaign ; on the other hand, its effect may be 
electric. Should it become known in Europe, it is quite possible 
that the German attack on Verdun might cease at once, because the 
Germans would not care to humiliate their future allies. For a 
similar reason the British might relax their blockade, and the Ger- 
mans might stop their submarine warfare. In any case the resolu- 
tion would go on record as the work of an Irish-American, and 
when it bears fruit, as it doubtless will in the near future, it will 
be a source of pride to every Irishman in every part of the globe 
to think that the greatest deed in history was initiated by a man of 
his race. 

No fair-minded man will deny that, for the good of England, for 
the good of humanity, as well as for her own good, Ireland ought to 
be a self-governing nation, instead of being a mere appendage to 
Britain. The only question is : What is the best way to bring it 
about? Evidently it cannot be done by force of arms. Nor would 
it be desirable to sever all political connection between the two 
countries. The western half of Britain is as truly Celtic as Ireland 
herself, and even the eastern half is largely Celtic. The "Celtic 
fringe" is pitiably thin at best; it should not be further weakened 
by disunion. Scattered through the British colonies are several 
million Irishmen and other Celts. Surely the Irish do not wish their 
Celtic brothers in the British empire to regard them as foreigners! 

Today, when the globe can be encircled in three months, when 
every nation considers the world its market, when international in- 
terests are visibly growing day by day, it would be rank heresy for 
any nation to try to reverse the manifest current of history. What 
we need is to unite those that are disunited, not to disunite those 
that are united. 



58 

Hand in hand with the process of centralization, there must of 
course be a process of decentralization, or devolution, as the English 
term it. The tasks of legislation nowadays are so manifold that the 
central legislatures cannot master them. What the world needs is 
the American system of federation and home rule, the strict divi- 
sion between federal and state functions, or, as our immortal Webster 
expresses it, "liberty and union, now and forever, one and in- 
separable." In our system, no state feels that it is an appendage of 
another ; no state feels itself outranked ; no state would accept 
independence even if it were offered. Let us Americanize the world 
by persuading it to adopt this American system. The first step in 
that direction must of course be to declare our willingness to be a 
member of the Americanized Republic of the World. We cannot 
afford to stultify ourselves by exhorting the world to adopt our 
federal system while yet we refuse to be a part of the federation. 

The immediate union of all the nations is of course impracticable. 
What is needed is a nucleus large enough to assure its continued 
growth. The foremost requisite for that purpose is the reunion of 
the two fragments of the English-speaking people. This cannot be 
accomplished without the consent of the German-Americans, and 
that consent can not be obtained unless Germany be included in the 
union. Since neither Britain nor the United States would permit 
the exclusion of France, it is evident that the nucleus of the future 
World Republic must be an Anglo-Franco-German-American alliance. 

This would at once secure for Ireland the same degree of self- 
government that Canada enjoys. Britain long ago withdrew her 
garrisons from Canada, knowing that Canada will always cling to 
the empire of her own free will. In the face of recent events, it 
would be idle to assert that Britain ought to trust Ireland to the 
same degree. Were Britain and America reunited, Britain could 
and would withdraw her last soldier from Ireland, because she 
would know that the Irish, having attained the dignified rank of 
a member in a world-embracing Celtanglian Federation, on a footing 
of equality with the other six members, Britain, the United States. 
Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, would never 
commit the treason of cutting loose from all the other Celts. 

(Third Letter.) 

Permit me to add a few remarks to my earlier communications 
concerning your resolution aiming to establish permanent peace 
through an alliance between Britain, France, Germany, and the 
United States, as the nucleus of world federation. 

The French and Germans, after their cruel sacrifices, will be glad 
of the prospect of permanent reconciliation and security. I am also 
inclined to believe that the majority of the American public have 
by this time made up their minds that by keeping up the tradition 
of no alliances, our nation would shirk its duty, and I have too high 
an opinion of my countrymen to think them capable of adopting the 
attitude of Cain, "Am I my brother's keeper?" 

Thus the prospect of permanent peace is excellent if you can get 
the English to admit that they are merely the equals, not the su- 
periors, of the French, Germans, Americans, and Irish. It is vain to 
deny, as some Englishmen do, that this feeling of superiority exists 
in England. The late W. T. Stead was fond of quoting a remark 
made to him by a Russian : "The trouble with you English is that 



59 

you seem to think that the Lord made you first and everybody else 
afterward." 

Nothing is more natural than that feeling. Among individuals who 
have attained marked success, only the really superior ones have 
sense enough to attribute their success in due proportion to outward 
circumstances and to their innate ability. Public opinion in every 
nation is the result of millions of utterances, mostly made by medi- 
ocrities. Even the few superior men who appreciate things at their 
true value will generally deem it wise to encourage the national self- 
esteem as an aid to greater national success. Accordingly we find 
that every nation with a record of brilliant achievements does or did 
consider itself the crown of creation, a comfortable belief, which, 
once started, cannot be wholly eradicated even by centuries of mis- 
fortune. Among the Athenians, the most bare-faced utterance in 
that respect is Pericles' famous speech, quoted by Thucydides. The 
literature of the Romans is permeated with the belief that they were 
the born masters of the earth. The French, having twice attained the 
leadership in civilization, under Louis XIV and under Napoleon, 
grew accustomed to the title "la grande nation" and to the quotation 
"The best idea is worthless to humanity until it has passed through 
a French brain." Even in the day of Germany's humiliation, a Ger- 
man poet, recalling past glories, was capable of saying: "Deutsches 
Volk, du herrlichstes von alien." The self-glorification of a certain 
part of the German press since 1870 is notorious. If Germany 
emerges from the world war with her present record undimmed, it 
is to be hoped that her superior men will band together in a resolute 
effort to prevent a disgusting paroxysm of self-flattery on the part of 
the mediocrities. 

Measured by results, England's success is of course the most 
brilliant in history. Her empire is the largest that ever existed, more 
than four times the size of the United States. For more than a 
hundred years she has enjoyed the undisputed supremacy of the 
seas ; she has been the richest nation in the world, without a rival 
in industry and commerce. No wonder that the innate superiority of 
the average Englishman has become a dogma in his own mind, no 
wonder he grows impatient at the German assertion of equality. 

That in average ability the British nation is not excelled by any 
nation on earth is proved by ample evidence. If Britain today is 
surpassed by Germany in science, education, industrial and social 
organization, as admitted every day by the most eminent British 
statesmen, that result is due not to inferior endowment, but to that 
very conviction of superiority which assumes that the traditional 
British methods are necessarily the best, and scorns to imitate the 
plodding neighbor. But who are the British people? They are a 
mixture of Celts, Romans, Germans, Danes, Normans. Until 1914 
they were proud to call themselves Anglo-Saxons, that is to say, 
Germans ; since then they have suddenly discovered that they are 
mostly Celts, a name which formerly they were not disposed to em- 
phasize as a part of their composition. British superiority means 
of course superiority over Celts, Romans, Germans, Danes, and Nor- 
mans. The stream is supposed to have risen higher than its sources; 
the whole is greater than the sum of its parts — mathematics notwith- 
standing. 

An American scientist some time ago compiled a list of the promi- 
nent scientists of modern times. When he grouped them by nationali- 
ties, he was surprised to find that the English, French, and Germans 
were exactly equal in numbers. The unbiased philosopher will be 



60 

Inclined to accept this result as a fair test of the comparative innate 
ability of the three nations, and to infer that the difference in their 
success is solely due to outward circumstances. Today the world 
marvels at Germany's national efficiency ; during the 200 years before 
1870, Germany's national inefficiency had become almost proverbial. 
Yet the historian who looks into details finds that among the hundreds 
of princes, dukes, and counts who held sovereign sway in Germany 
after 1648, there were scores of men fully equal in ability to Hinden- 
burg and Mackensen, but compelled to waste their talents in mutual 
antagonism, instead of devoting them to the common Fatherland. 
French generalship after Louis XIV had sunk to a low ebb of fame, 
yet no sooner had the nation rediscovered itself in the revolution than 
it brought forth a host of first-class generals. 

Let me here say a word for Ireland. To the superficial observer 
the story of Ireland during the last 700 years seems a record of un- 
interrupted failure, and he is but too prone to attribute it to an ab- 
sence of able leaders. He who has candor enough to look beneath 
the surface will find that the sole cause of Ireland's failure was the 
same that afflicted Germany : disunion. Many of the Irish chiefs, 
Kavanaghs, O'Neills, O'Donnels, displayed an ability which would 
have placed them in the front rank if it had been exerted on a wider 
theater. Even as it was, it sufficed to keep the larger part of Ire- 
land practically independent till Cromwell's time. Had that ability 
not been wasted in fratricidal strife, Ireland might have been a con- 
quering instead of a conquered nation. 

Unity and insularity were the two outward circumstances that en- 
abled England's unquestionable native ability to achieve its phenome- 
nal success — unity, not the fruit of her own wise choice, but im- 
posed on her by a ruthless invader, William the Conqueror ; in- 
sularity, the gift of geology. Insularity saved her from further in- 
vasion and thus enabled her to dispense with a large standing army, 
the source of the despotism which blighted the continental countries; 
unity saved her from self-waste and enabled her to take full ad- 
vantage of the achievements of her sailors and soldiers. 

Englishmen who love the truth — and their name is legion — can 
do nothing better at this moment than to persuade their countrymen 
to meet Frenchmen, Germans, Americans, Irishmen on a level. You 
cannot cordially cooperate with those who expect you to look up to 
them. It would be a humiliation for the Irish-Americans to vote for 
Anglo-American reunion if in that reunion Ireland is to be subordi- 
nate to Britain. Let Ireland be placed on a level with the other six 
members of the proposed Celtanglian Federation, and every reason- 
able Irish- American will vote for Anglo-American reunion as the only 
means by which he may enter into the closest possible reunion with 
the land of his fathers. 

Celts and Germans were originally one people, as proved by their 
languages. For 2,000 years, probably much longer, they have striven 
for the mastery, with the result of becoming inextricably blended. 
They now represent the most advanced nations of mankind, the ones 
best fitted to initiate and control the Federation of the World. Both 
are tormented by the memory of disasters produced by disunion. Let 
them heed the voice of kindship, of reason, of self-interest, and of the 
highest morality. Let them combine into one great, beneficent power 
of Celtogermania, the magnetic nucleus of the World Republic. 

In certain backward districts of Europe and America the law of 
vendetta still prevails. According to that law, it is dishonorable to 



61 

forgive an injury ; you must wipe it out with the blood of the offender 
or of one of his relatives, even though you gain nothing thereby and 
even though you know beforehand that they will thereupon become 
subject to the same duty of retaliation on you and your family. The 
result is perpetual insecurity, perpetual tragedy, perpetual misery. 
The people who submit to that custom are rightly called barbarous. 
Britons, Frenchmen, Germans, Irishmen claim to be civilized. Let 
them prove it by rising superior to their ancient blood-feuds. If blow 
must always be returned for blow, there will never be an end of 
fighting. As an Irish-American I should deem it the greatest glory 
for the Irish race if one of its representatives called a halt to this 
eternal barbarous game of retaliation. — Thomas C. Kelly, McArthur, 
Vinton Co., Ohio. 

Your inquiry affords me an opportunity to say a few things the 
publication of which will do no harm. 

For over a year, 1692-3, the Salem witchcraft craze raged un- 
abated. The "evidence" was deemed so overwhelming that nobody 
dared contradict it. Nineteen persons were hanged and one was 
pressed to death for the "crime." When the spell was broken the 
legislature appointed a general fast and supplication, and Judge 
Sewall, who had rendered judgment on the "evidence" at many 
witch trials, stood up in church on the fast day and implored the 
prayers of the people that the errors which he had committed might 
not be visited by the judgment of an avenging God on his country, 
his family, and himself. 

The experience of the last two years leads one to doubt whether 
the average citizen today is more careful in sifting evidence than 
were the Salemites of 223 years ago. The larger part of the Ameri- 
can press seems to think that the "evidence" leaves no doubt regard- 
ing these conclusions: that Germany is a wanton aggressor, seeking 
world dominion ; that she is rapacious, arrogant, overbearing ; that 
the German people are groaning under a horrible tyrany ; that they 
are victims of a disease called militarism ; that their method of 
warfare is characterized by a brutality of which no other civilized 
nation would be capable. When we sift the "evidence," we find it 
about as substantial as that of the witch trials. To go into details 
would mean to make accusations, and would profit nobody. Ten 
years from now, when passion has subsided and new emergencies 
shall have given rise to new international groups, prompting new 
currents of opinion, every candid mind will recognize, and some 
minds not candid will profess to recognize, that Germany's action in 
the present war has been purely defensive; that she has done 
nothing but what any nation, placed in similar circumstances, and 
possessed of equally resolute and conscientious leaders, would have 
done; that no serious mind in Germany ever dreamt of world do- 
minion ; that, if the ideal government is one which puts every class 
of work in the hands of those most competent to do it, Germany 
comes nearer the ideal than any other nation. Had her accusers 
been born in Germany, they would have been equally loud in accus- 
ing her enemies. 

Some of my esteemed fellow-citizens will grow impatient at these 
remarks. "Does not the Kaiser call himself supreme war lord? 
Does not the Opening line of Germany's national hymn expressly 
state that Germany must rule everything?" 

"Der oberste Kriegsherr" does not mean "supreme war lord" ; it 



62 

simply means "commander-in-chief," a title borne by President Wil- 
son himself. "Deutschland, Deutschland, tiber alles" simply means 
that the poet loves his country above everything — a stereotyped senti- 
ment professed by every citizen of every country, whether he feels it 
or not. Such is the "evidence" on which our enlightened contem- 
poraries base their opinion. As for Germany's "rapacity," it may 
suffice to recall that Britain owns over 13 million square miles of 
land, Russia over 8% million, France over 4% million, the United 
States over 3 million, Germany only 1,20S,000. Little Belgium owns 
nearly as much. 

England has never ceased lamenting the evil fate which placed 
the control of her policy in the hands of a narrow-minded king and 
a blundering minister at the moment when the relations between 
the mother country and her American colonies had reached a crisis 
which called for the broadest statesmanship. The day will come 
when England's participation in the war against Germany will be 
recognized by the wisest of Englishmen as an even greater blunder. 
Morley, Trevelyan and Burns, who resigned from the Cabinet rather 
than share the responsibility for this fratricidal war, will be likened 
to Chatham. 

This does not mean that no mistakes have been made on the 
German side. The percentage of indiscreet, rash, brutal people is 
about the same in all countries. It would not be difficult to gather 
a bouquet of quotations from the German press, as silly and offensive 
as could be found anywhere. Unfortunately such utterances are apt 
to attract more attention than those of sober people. It is the 
statesman's duty to discriminate between this froth and the real 
representative opinion. 

It remains to inquire how the stumbling-block may be turned into 
a stepping-stone. The war has had at least one good effect : it has 
brought Americans to realize that this planet of ours is very small, 
and that the attempt to fence off a little corner of it and pretend 
that this corner has nothing to do with the rest, is Pumpkinville 
philosophy. Before the war, the suggestion of an alliance of the 
United States with other nations was not regarded as practical poli- 
tics. Now it is the dominant thought in the minds of our ablest 
political leaders, including President Wilson. The immense im- 
portance of this change lies in this : that as soon as America is will- 
ing to abandon her unreasoning tradition of isolation, she will be- 
come the long-sought missing link between England and Germany. 
By thus reuniting the three great Germanic nations, we may repair 
not only the blunder of 1914 — so far as repair is possible — but also 
the blunder of George III in 1775. We can not get rid of our 
hyphens ; we can only pretend to ignore them. Heredity is more 
important than geography. Instead of trying to silence the voice 
of kinship, instead of repudiating our connection with our home 
lands, true patriotism will prompt us to give it definite and effect- 
ive form. Instead of one hyphen, let us all acknowledge two, or 
rather three, for the alliance is evidently impossible unless France 
be included. The Quadruple Alliance would practically mean the 
union of the Celtic and Germanic branches of the Aryan family, the 
two branches which at this moment comprise by far the larger part 
of civilization. Celtogermania would mean the union of civilization 
and eternal peace. 

And to think that it might have been done twenty years ago 
without war, if the "practical" men had not scouted the idea as a 



63 

dream of "impractical" theorists !— Dr. L. R. Klemm, 919 B street 
N. E., Washington. D. C. 

The goal in the onward march of western civilization will not have 
been reached until the processes which have been going on for two 
centuries have welded these two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon 
race into a substantial homogeneous people that will reflect credit 
upon the hegemony of our race and further advance the influence of 
Anglo-Saxon civilization. — Philander C. Knox, former Senator from 
Pennsylvania ; Attorney General, 1901-1904 ; Secretary of State, 1909- 
1913. Speech at Lancaster, Pa., January 10, 1916. 

I agree with you in every essential point. For many years I have 
been hoping for Germanic union, for to my mind the preservation of 
the Germanic race is the highest aim of humanity. I can assure you 
that the leading statesmen of Germany have for many years sincerely 
and patiently sought an understanding with England and France, 
especially our Kaiser, who regards the preservation of peace for the 
Germanic world as his divinely ordained mission. Our Imperial 
Chancellor, too, has striven for peace, but England and France re- 
pelled the proffered hand. 

This makes me fear that England and France will not be content 
with the proposals made in your pamphlet, although the leading men 
in Germany will be ready to make concessions. The retention of 
Belgium is not a vital matter for us, except during the continuance 
of the war, to prevent its munition factories and industrial plants 
from reinforcing the enemy. The same is true of northern France. 
The French, however, will not be content with the recovery of the 
French-speaking districts; they demand all Alsace-Lorraine. For 
that matter they went to war not so much on that account as for the 
sake of "revanche." 

The English were willing to come to terms only on condition that 
we surrender our independence and become their subjects. The 
Russians regarded us as the main obstacle that prevented them 
from trampling on Europe. Thus was formed the great conspiracy 
against us. 

The English are a proud nation, but we are of the same blood, and 
hence we could not bear to be their servants. The hatred kindled in 
Germany by the English declaration of war has perceptibly declined, 
since we have found that they and their dusky partners cannot bring 
Germany to her knees. Today the English are not yet willing to 
grant us breathing space ; but a year from now I hope they will have 
become convinced that they cannot strangle their Germanic brothers. 

Our peace-loving Kaiser and our Chancellor will gladly make con- 
cessions. We need not retain any districts of alien speech in the 
west. On the east, however, Germany must have a sphere of influ- 
ence; that is a vital question for the Germanic (Teutonic) race. The 
defeat of Germany would also lead to the collapse of the British Em- 
pire, because Britain would then be unable to defend India either 
against Russia or against eastei'n Asia. At present England is our 
principal enemy, but in the future it will be Russia, and in a more 
remote future eastern Asia will be the enemy of us all. 

So far as I am concerned, I will try to popularize the idea of Ger- 
manic union. I will review your paper in the Archiv fur Rassen- 
und Gesellschafts-Biologie, and send a copy to Consul von Hoffmann, 
who has written a book on racial hygiene in North America. I will 
also try to interest the daily press. 



64 

Let us hope that Germanic union will spring from this fratricidal 
war, just as German union sprang from the fratricidal war of 1866. 
The English know now that we are their peers. — Dr. Fritz Lenz, 
Associate Editor of Archiv fiir Rassen- und Gesellschafts-Biologie 
(the leading magazine of eugenics), Munich, Germany. (Transla- 
tion. ) 

If you can get a resolution for such an alliance passed through Con- 
gress, backed by sufficient approval and leadership in Congress to 
begin negotiations through diplomatic channels, the United States 
has prestige enough to get a hearing. — I. A. Loos, Head Professor of 
Political Economy and Sociology, State University of Iowa, Iowa 
City, Iowa. 

I am in full sympathy with your ideas as regards making a world 
war impossible in the future by forming a constructive alliance, 
strong enough in brains, resources, and men to resist any other group 
of powers, and to which alliance the United States should be a party. 

There never will be any lasting peace as long as nations remain 
non-united to other nations, and as long as children and adults are 
taught that their country is better than somebody else's country. The 
attempt to build up a powerful quadruple entente will certainly be a 
step in the right direction toward the United States of the World. — 
Frank N. Meyer, Agricultural Explorer, Bureau of Plant Industry, 
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 

I am heartily in accord with the object which the resolution has in 
view, and think it would be a wise and patriotic movement to intro- 
duce such a resolution in Congress. I greatly hope, if introduced, it 
will meet with their approval and be submitted to the American peo- 
ple. If it is, I am very sure it will meet with practically unanimous 
approval. — Brig. Gen. E. W. Nichols, Superintendent Virginia Military 
Institute, Lexington, Va. 

I am glad to see any move made aiming in the right direction. 
We have climbed upward in the group organization from the patri- 
archal family through clan and tribe to the nation, and logically the 
next step must be the super-nation. In all human probability your 
proposition is in the direct line of evolution, and is one of the steps 
that men have got to take if they are going to adjust themselves to 
the highly complex environment with which they are now confronted. 

In spite of the great authority of Washington and of his undoubted 
wisdom, we must remember that he died nearly a century and a 
quarter ago. While he could foresee the grandeur of national devel- 
opment on this continent, he could not possibly have foreseen its in- 
tense complexity and the innumerable connections of trade, thought, 
and feeling which have been interwoven into the fabric of civiliza- 
tion. All this involves the readiness to take our share both in the 
councils and in the action which may at any time be necessary for 
the support of such a policy. This means some kind of an efficient 
military organization proportional to our population and resources. — 
Edivard D. Page, President Merchants' Protective Association ; Fellow 
Royal Statistical Society of Great Britain, etc., 31 Nassau street, 
New York. 

The bond between us is a bond of blood. I say, with due regard to 
other blood and other nations, that it is with us who speak the lan- 
guage of Shakespeare that the responsibility of ruling the world 



65 

must rest. The Pilgrim Fathers were not only God-led men, but they 
were God-led Englishmen. — Ambassador Walter H. Page, in speech at 
the dedication of the Mayflower obelisk at Southampton, England. 

Since the application of steam to ocean transportation, nations have 
become more intimately dependent upon each other than the States of 
the Union were in 1860. Nations, when they can think rationally, 
must provide against contingencies that arise when the national mind 
is paralyzed by a paroxysm of emotions aroused by some sudden acci- 
dent. For this reason I think that the United States should enter 
into an alliance with the leading nations of the world to make such 
an occurrence impossible. In conformity with our democratic ideals, 
nothing could be more appropriate than to submit such a proposition 
to the approval of the people. — E. George Payne, Department of Edu- 
cational Psychology, Harris Teachers' College, St. Louis, Mo. 

To one accustomed to view man in the light of his evolution, much 
of the peace literature is a dreary sea of sentimentalism. It is a 
great relief to discover such a solid little island of logic as is the 
pamphlet "Arm to Disarm." It shows a grasp of the biologic laws 
governing the evolution of the human species which ought to be very 
common, but is in fact extraordinarily rare. 

The biologist knows that if the race is to progress rather than to 
degenerate, the superior types of men must have the best chance to 
spread. In order to have the chance, they must have the power. The 
proverbial source of power is union. Hence the aim of enlightened 
statesmanship must be some sort of union — at least a "working agree- 
ment" — among the superior human elements. 

"By their fruits ye shall know them." The larger part of civiliza- 
tion is today concentrated in four great nations : Britain, France, 
Germany, and the United States. A league consisting of these four 
would practically amount to the union of civilization, and would be 
so overwhelmingly strong as to be able to forbid war all over the 
globe. It would assure to the superior human elements a better 
chance to spread than they now enjoy, and would thus afford the 
only possible means for fundamental betterment of the race as a 
whole. 

This being the paramount condition of the progress of the human 
race — and incidentally of the increase of human happiness — every- 
thing must be subordinated to it. The tradition of "no entangling 
alliances" was good so long as this Quadruple Alliance was not pos- 
sible. But today, if we could possibly create the Quadruple Alliance 
by offering to join hands with the three nations of which most of our 
ancestors were proud and patriotic citizens not long ago, then the 
policy of "no alliances" is directly destructive to our best interests, 
and equally to the best interests of the race as a whole. If we fail 
to combine with other superior human groups into a world-command- 
ing power, we may soon be left alone to face a very different combi- 
nation. 

We are told that all such proposals must wait till the war is over. 
This means that we must stand idle while our natural allies bankrupt 
one another in money and lives. From an evolutionary point of view, 
the human race has probably lost more ground since August, 1914, 
than in any other equal period of its history. In their present dead- 
lock, none of the combatants feel that they can afford to make the 
first advances toward peace; yet we know that they are all sighing 
for it. Our mediation would be hailed with joy, if accompanied by an 

5v 



66 

offer which would absolutely safeguard the future of the three lead- 
ing belligerents, because it is to secure such a safeguard that they 
are fighting. 

By all means give the American voters a chance to prove that they 
are of the superior type. — Paul Popenoe, Editor The Journal of He- 
redity, 511 Eleventh street, Washington, D. C. 

There is a manifest resemblance between your program and that of 
the League to Enforce Peace, but there are important differences. It 
may be a useful piece of work to analyze these differences. 

1. The League says expressly that it does not contemplate any 
action tending to shorten the present war. Your resolution is ex- 
pressly designed to prepare the way for mediation and thus to put 
an end to the war. 

2. The League does not specify the nations which are to form the 
combination. Your resolution specifies Britain, France, Germany, and 
the United States. Evidently none of these four can be omitted if 
the combination is to be efficient. Evidently, also, the four nations 
named would by themselves be quite sufficient to enforce peace. Such 
being the case, it does seem as if the admission of other nations from 
the very start would needlessly add to the difficulty of getting the 
combination into working order. Even at best that difficulty will be- 
very great. 

3. The League states that the sole purpose of the proposed combi- 
nation is the preservation of peace. Your resolution expressly pro- 
vides for an alliance to promote the self-interests of the contracting 
parties. It seems to me that your program reveals a somewhat deeper 
study of human nature. It may be doubted whether at the moment 
of test any nation will be self-sacrificing enough to shed the blood of 
its sons merely in order that the world may have peace. On the other 
hand, we know that nations are but too ready to shed the blood of 
their sons in order to gain some selfish national advantage. When 
Britain, France, Germany, and the United States are once united, 
their selfish interests, no longer conflicting, will compel them to use 
their overwhelming force to prevent war. No blood will be shed, be- 
cause no nation will be foolish enough to oppose such a power. 

It will be objected that even if Britain, France, Germany, and the 
United States do become allied, there is no certainty that they will 
not go to war among themselves, despite all treaties. This is true of 
any alliance ; but it is less likely in the present case than in any 
other that can be imagined. Nations nowadays do not go to war 
unless they think their future in danger. When the four nations are 
united, their future will be absolutely secure. 

Again, it will be objected that the four nations would be tempted to 
abuse their power. This again applies to any conceivable alliance, 
and no mere stipulation can prevent it. But if an alliance of the 
four most enlightened nations would be apt to tyrannize, certainly 
that danger would not be lessened by admitting less enlightened na- 
tions. The four nations are democracies, and a true democracy does 
not tyrannize. We certainly cannot imagine that the people of the 
United States would ever be tempted to tyrannize over smaller na- 
tions. Now the vast majority of our people are Britons, Frenchmen, 
and Germans by birth or descent, with the same instincts as our 
kindred in the Old World. As soon as the democracies of Britain, 
France, and Germany feel that their future is as secure as ours, they 
will not care to tyrannize any more than we do. 

In brief, it seems to me that the program of the League to Enforce 



67 

Peace is the generic form of an idea of which your resolution is the 
specific form. There is no conflict between them, and I should not be 
surprised if the League, after looking into your plan, would adopt it 
and push it enthusiastically. — Arthur Ramsay, President Washington 
Peace Society, 1401 Euclid street, Washington, D. O. 

The idea of giving the American voters an opportunity to express 
themselves on whether or not the United States should enter into a 
defensive alliance with other nations is excellent. I should certainly 
vote in the affirmative if it came to me ; but I should like the plan 
better if it did not restrict the possible alliance to Britain, France, 
and Germany. A weighty consideration in favor of presenting this 
matter to the voters is that it would give an opportunity for a cam- 
paign of education of the people in national and international mo- 
rality. Such education is indispensable to success in any attempt to 
relieve the world of such catastrophes as the one we are now witness- 
ing. — William E. Bitter, Director the Scripps Institution for Biolog- 
ical Research of the University of California, La Jolla, near San 
Diego, Cal. 

While I cannot approve the author's reasoning in all particulars, 
yet the fact that Britain, France, Germany, and the United States 
are among the most powerful and enlightened countries on the earth, 
and that they have attained considerable liberality in thought and 
speech and in government, would make a union of these four powers 
capable of accomplishing a good deal for humanity. The offer might 
be entirely unavailing, but I think it would at worst do no harm to 
make it. — Frederick W. Sanders, Ph. D., Dean of Hollywood Junior 
College and Head of Department of Social Science, Los Angeles, Cal. 

An alliance between England, France, Germany, and the United 
States would insure the peace of the world, and I think nothing so 
desirable as such an alliance. If a mandate from the people be neces- 
sary, I see no reason why it should not be asked. I do not agree 
with some things Mr. Stein suggests — e. g., the settlement of the Bel- 
gian question or the Serbian. But that has nothing to do with the 
general proposition. Any way to get Britain, France, Germany, and 
the United States into an alliance to safeguard the future peace of 
the world has my support. — Charles Forster Smith, Professor of Greek 
and Classical Philology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. 

The best comment I can make on your plan is to quote a dispatch 
printed in the Washington Post of July 13 : 

"Detroit, Mich., July 13. — That the drafting of the Russo- 
Japanese treaty is merely the first step in negotiations that 
ultimately will result in the formation of a triple offensive and 
defensive alliance between Japan, Russia, and Germany was 
the opinion expressed today by Charles Denby, of Detroit, for- 
mer American Consul General at Peking. Denby has just re- 
turned from an extensive trip through China and Japan. 

" 'Japan realizes that her alliance with Great Britain would 
be non-effective in the event of trouble with the United States,' 
Denby said, 'and she is anxious to negotiate new alliances else- 
where. Pro-German sentiment is overwhelming in Japan, de- 
spite the country's connection with the allies. 

" 'It is not true that Japan purposes to gain her ends by force 
in the near future. But it is true that the Japanese regard 



68 

their desire to enter, upon terms of equality, the territories of 
the nations bordering along the Pacific as one destined to be 
accomplished by force if ultimately necessary. 

" 'The Japanese statesmen most certainly believe that the 
Japanese are destined to be the propagandists of a new yellow 
civilization, beginning where the white has left off and reach- 
ing limits of which the white has not yet dreamed.' " 

Mr. Denby is a man of lifelong experience in Far Eastern matters. 
When such a man speaks in this tone, it is time to open our ears and 
eyes. That an alliance with Russia and Japan would be intensely 
galling to Germany's pride goes without saying; but rather than 
allow herself to be crushed, she will swallow the pill, especially in 
view of the immense advantages which she would find in the exploi- 
tation of the vast Russian Empire, three times as large as the United 
States. 

What would this mean? It would mean the union of all Asia and 
more than half of Europe into a tremendous power of over 1,000 
million people, with the cheapest labor in the world, to be quickly 
organized by the highest intellect of Germany. China would be 
jointly controlled by the three allies, and the open door would shut 
with a snap. The 315 million people of India would become Russian 
•subjects, while the Dutch and French East Indies, the Philippines, 
.and Australia would become Japanese colonies. The four million 
white men in Australia, becoming subject to Mongolians, would soon 
the lost in the yellow flood. 

That we with our unaided strength could hold out against such a 
vpower not even the wildest dreamer will venture to assert. South 
America would be overrun first, and we should be as powerless to de- 
fend it as if it were located in the moon. When South America is 
Mongolized and converted into a base of operations of Mongolian 
armies and navies, how shall we prevent the Mongolization of Mexico 
and Canada? When finally we have Mongolians to the south and 
north of us, and millions coming every year across the Pacific, how 
shall we keep them out of our own country? Even if we spend nine- 
tenths of our revenue for army and navy, we shall be hopelessly out- 
stripped by a power ten times stronger than ourselves, with labor six 
times cheaper. 

A stitch in time saves nine. Eternal vigilance is the price of lib- 
erty. Smother the spark and there will be no conflagration. Con- 
gress has voted three-quarters of a billion dollars for armaments ; but 
if we do nothing else, we might just as well throw that money into 
the sea. The only means to avert the coming disaster is the union of 
the white race. Germany must not be driven into alliance with Asia ; 
she must be enabled to remain what she is now and what she wishes 
to be: one of the pillars of western civilization. 

It would be silly for us to attempt to unite the white race unless 
we are willing to be part of the union. Since it would be vain to 
attempt to unite all the white nations at once, let us start with those 
nations whose union will suffice to attract the rest. In other words, 
the most urgent need of the day is an alliance between Britain, 
France, Germany, and the United States. Since the other three na- 
tions cannot take the lead in this matter, that duty devolves on us. 

Of course, it would be almost an idle ceremony to offer our alliance 
to Britain, France, and Germany unless we possess an armament 
large enough to make our alliance valuable to them. As soon as this 
Quadruple Alliance is in working order, it will represent such an 



69 

overwhelming power that a further increase of armaments will not 
be necessary, and very soon it will be possible to reduce the existing 
armament and still keep it strong enough to enforce universal peace. 
It is strictly true, therefore, that by voting for the largest possible 
increase of army and navy at this moment, as the indispensable 
means to bring about the world-commanding, irresistible Quadruple 
Alliance, we shall have the best assurance of being able in the near 
future to reduce our armament to very reasonable limits without risk 
to the permanence of world-wide peace. 

Some of our wise men tell us that the American people will not 
enter into an alliance, even though they could thereby insure eternal 
peace. How do you know that? You infer it because you have heard 
the phrase "entangling alliances." The fact is that the people have 
never had a chance to express their wishes on the subject. How can 
we find out their wishes? By asking them. 

And there never was a question on which the voters had a more 
sacred right to be consulted. It amounts to this : Shall we or shall 
we not have eternal peace? Shall this nation dwell in perpetual 
security or shall it drift on to an abyss? 

The time may soon come when we must have allies or perish. It 
would be childish levity to wait till the day of need is at hand. If 
we wish to prove that we are a nation of adults, we must take steps 
at once to make sure that we shall have allies when we need them. 
Today an offer of alliance from us to our three parent nations would 
be received with transports of joy ; if we fail to profit by the oppor- 
tunity, the time may come when we shall pray on our knees for an 
ally and pray in vain, because by that time those who should have 
been our allies may have ruined each other. 

No prudent man will say that an alliance of Germany, Russia, and 
Japan is impossible. The opposite case does look almost inconceiv- 
able, but yet a brief consideration of it may be instructive. Eastern 
Siberia is almost denuded of Russian troops. If the Japanese made 
an attack on it, for which they could readily find a plausible pretext, 
they could take Manchuria, Mongolia, and eastern Siberia almost 
without firing a shot. They would thus gain some three million 
square miles, with vast ore deposits, and at least half of it suitable 
for farming. Russia would be prostrated and could not recover for 
ten years. The 20 million Manchus and Mongols would swell the 70 
millions of Japan to 90 millions, and an alliance with China would 
supply additional millions, making it impossible for Russia to recover 
her possessions unaided. Who would aid Russia? Not Britain, for 
even if she had the troops she would need them in India and could 
not transport them to the critical points. The narrow strait between 
Japan and Korea would be closed by mines, preventing the British 
navy from interrupting Japan's communications. Germany would 
not care to resuscitate the Russian peril, which has been her night- 
mare for 50 years. The thrifty capitalists of the United States would 
probably welcome the chance to sell ammunition to both sides. You 
will say that the white nations would surely combine to prevent one 
of their number from being robbed by Mongolians. Why do they not 
combine now instead of trying to ruin each other? In brief, if Japan 
takes eastern Siberia she will most likely keep it. She would then 
be in a position to form an effective alliance with China, because she 
would no longer be under the necessity of trying to encroach on 
China. The united Mongolians would soon make short work of Brit- 
ish rule in India. 



70 

We can nip this danger in the bud by taking the initiative toward 
the Quadruple Alliance, which would be the best protection for 
Russia against the Asiatic danger. To neglect this duty would be to 
commit national suicide. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound 
of cure. 

Both President Wilson and ex-President Taft have declared that 
the traditional policy of avoiding alliances is no longer in harmony 
with the best interests of this country. Their opinion is shared by 
the League to Enforce Peace, including such distinguished men as 
Cardinal Gibbons, Andrew D. White, Alton B. Parker, John Hays 
Hammond, Senator Theodore Burton, and the presidents of Harvard, 
Princeton, Wisconsin, California, and Virginia universities. When 
such intellectual leaders favor an alliance, it certainly seems about 
time to find out definitely what the American people think on the 
subject. And the only way to find out is a popular vote. 

In The World's Court of July, 1916, Dr. John Wesley Hill says: 
"When peace comes, it must come unequivocally. It would be a 
tragedy beyond human estimation to have this expensive conflict die 
out like a mere guttering candle, leaving no basis for a permanent or 
worthy solution. The real peace talk must not be variable and 
aflutter in every breeze of martial vicissitude. The nations dare not 
again submit to a wobbling and sham peace, such as has character- 
ized so many contests. Unless a peace so broad and secure that it 
cannot be shaken be achieved, this war, great and terrible and un- 
precedented as it undoubtedly is, will stand but the first in a series 
of wars so unspeakable in scope as to appall the mind." 

Exactly. And the only way to terminate the interminable is to 
create an irresistible power whose members shall find it to their 
interest to stick together. — Frank 0. Smith, ex-Congressman, Dun- 
kirk, Md. 

Let me make a forecast of what will happen when you publish 
your idea of an Anglo-Franco-German-American League of Peace. 
I will put my forecast in the form of a conversation between a critic, 
A, and yourself, B. 

A. It is impossible to reconcile the interests of such keen rivals aa 
Britain, France, and Germany. 

B. Their interests are not more irreconcilable than those of the 
several sections of the United States. Our States remain united be- 
cause they recognize that the advantages of union are far greater 
than the advantages of disunion would be. Let Britain, France, and 
Germany be once united and have a little practical experience of the 
advantages of union and they will never dream of separating. 

A. But why not take in all the nations? 

B. A moment ago you said that the union of four nations is im- 
possible because of the difficulty of reconciling their interests. If the 
union of four is impossible, the union of eight is twice impossible, 
and the union of forty is ten times impossible. If it is so difficult to 
reconcile conflicting interests, why should you unnecessarily multiply 
the number of interests to be reconciled? 

A. But a predominant power like the proposed alliance would be 
tyrannical. 

B. Not more so than the United States is toward Cuba. If we 
cared to tyrannize over Cuba, no power on earth would try to stop 
us. Why don't we tyrannize? Because our people have no taste for 
it. Neither would the people of the proposed Quadruple Alliance, 



71 

who are all of the same breed as ourselves, endowed with the same 
instincts. We have to trust the people in any case. It is wiser to 
trust the people of the freest and most enlightened nations than to 
trust a hodgepodge of free and unfree, civilized and barbarous. 

A. But why submit this matter to the vote of the people? Is it 
not a matter for Congress and the President to deal with? 

B. If you had had any experience with legislative assemblies, you 
would know that Congress will never take the responsibility of such 
a step until the people have declared their will. 

A. But— 

There is no need of going any farther. The only object of gnaw- 
ing through the shell of objections is to get at the kernel of helpful- 
ness. Mr. A has no kernel ; he is all shell. Let him learn to play 
solitaire, finding answers to his own objections, while you test the 
sharpness of your intellectual teeth on nuts that have kernels. — 
Middleton Smith, 2544 Fourteenth street, Washington, D. C. 

I concur in Prof. Irving Fisher's opinion. — Theobald Smith, Presi- 
dent Rockefeller Institute, Princeton, N. J. 

I approve of the idea, which seems to be in line with the program 
of the League to Enforce Peace, of which I am a member. The 
matter is one for our State Department to act on, with the advice 
and confirmation of our elected legislators. I feel that no referen- 
dum beyond the Congressmen is necessary, or even desirable. — J. 
Beaumont Spencer, Spencer & Randolph, Consulting and Construct- 
ing Engineers, 165 Broadway, New York. 

Your joint resolution appeals to me, a Jeffersonian Democrat, first, 
because your referendum is the essence of democracy, and, second, 
because the peace of the world, so necessary to human liberty and 
happiness, is essentially a Jeffersonian goal. The United States, the 
leading neutral power, the United Kingdom, the leading naval power, 
and the German empire, the leading military power, joined in a 
world peace pact, would constitute a definite and powerful nucleus 
which all the world would heed. The entente allies would speedily 
join Britain ; the central allies would follow Germany, and the neu- 
trals would follow the example of the United States, and we would 
soon have a United World Republic devoted to the cause of interna- 
tional peace. — Francis N. Stacy, journalist, Deputy Public Examiner 
of Minnesota, 1905-1913, 1771 T street, Washington, D. C. 

I am heartily in sympathy with this resolution, for I believe that 
some such alliance is the only means of preventing war in the future. 
I should like to suggest amendments, but I would still favor the 
resolution as it stands. I think the best way to go about it is to 
permit the people of the United States to express their opinion upon 
it in an election. — George H. Von Tungeln, Professor of Applied Eco- 
nomics and Social Science, Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa. 

I am in hearty sympathy with the plans of the League to Enforce 
Peace, and believe that the nearest approach to world peace can be 
attained by placing the preponderance of armament in the hands of 
peaceful people. If the United States army were as large in propor- 
tion to the size of the nation as the New York police is in proportion 
to the size of the city, we should not now be living in such humiliat- 
ing conditions. We should rather enjoy the respect which is due to 
this nation, and would be in a position to influence other nations for 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



020 934 790 8 • 



72 



good. — Henry Woodhouse, a Governor of the Aero Club of America, 
297 Madison avenue, New York. 

When people tell me that there will always be war, because it is 
the necessary consequence of human nature, I cannot help thinking 
of the time when we were told that men would never fly, because 
nature gave them no wings. Yet how simple and easy it was to make 
the wings and use them, after somebody had shown us how to do it! 
Everybody now wonders why he had not thought of such a simple 
thing. 

In all probability the creation of permanent peace will be just as 
simple. Get England and Germany to combine and you have eternal 
peace. The United States can make them combine by offering her 
alliance to both. Are our people willing to make that offer? Ask 
them. 

In a word, the statesman who introduces the proposed resolution 
will lead the way to peace, as Columbus led the way to America. To 
be known throughout the future ages as the Columbus of peace is a 
prospect which may well fire the ambition of any sincere and aspir- 
ing mind. 

If America is willing to be reunited to Britain, the British people 
will feel that the future of their empire is forever secure. Instead 
of trying to starve Germany, they will then have every motive to 
offer her the most advantageous terms of peace in order to gain the 
German-Americans' consent to Anglo-American reunion. It is en- 
tirely probable that the immediate effect of your resolution would be 
the relaxation of the blockade which Britain maintains against Ger- 
many. Germany, as we know by her repeated declaration, would at 
once respond by restricting or even abandoning her submarine war- 
fare. Thus your resolution would achieve the object for which 
President Wilson is striving. It would achieve much more. It would 
enable the President to offer mediation with the practical certainty 
of its being accepted. 

Under the circumstances in which I am placed, I must request you 
not to publish my name. My letter will do just as much good without 
my signature as with it — perhaps more. My German-American friends 
would roast me if they learned that I had said a good word for Eng- 
land, and I do not wish to put them to the trouble of having to eat 
their words when England and Germany are friends once more. I 
think it my duty, however, to express the deep conviction that any 
German-American who opposes your plan will prove not a friend, but 
an enemy to Germany. 

Mr. S. S. McClure's Berlin dispatch, published in the New York 
Evening Mail of February 25, 1916, proves that the leaders of German 
thought consider an alliance between England, Germany, and the 
United States to be the only means to assure permanent peace. Thus 
there can be no doubt that your resolution would be welcomed in 
Germany. Surely the people who are on the spot understand Ger- 
many's interests better than the people who are 4,000 miles away. 
When the German press declares in favor of your plan, the German- 
American press will necessarily follow. — A German-American. 



(3200T) 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS g 



020 934 790 8 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



